■ 



■ 



■ 

■ 



■ 

■ 

I ■ 




■ ■ 



« ** 



■■ 



■ 



■ 



■ 



'* ■ 






■»* 




Pass PKlGl 
Book iP^V 



AN ESSAY 






PRONUNCIATION 



OF 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 



G. J. PENNINGTON, M.A. 



LATE FELLOW OF KINGS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 




LONDON: 
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, 

1844. 



^h 






^ 



PRINTED BY RICHARD AND JOHN E. TAYLOR, 
RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Page 

1 . Introduction 1 

2. Present time favourable for the inquiry 2 

3. What writers to be used as authorities 3 

4. Inquiry confined to Attic dialect 11 

5. Analogy between the Greek and Latin 13 

6. Mistakes in inscriptions 18 

7. Sounds of animals 20 

8. Puns 23 



CHAPTER II. 

1 . Number of Greek letters „ 2.5 

2. Vowels 27 

3. Diphthongs 40 

4. Consonants 68 



CHAPTER III. 

1 . Accents 78 

2. Dr. Foster's work 78 

3. Definition of accent 79 

4. Accentual marks 81 

5. Instance selected as a guide for the voice in reading 92 

6. Accents of monosyllables , 104 

7. Oxytones 106 

8. Disyllables 1 24 

9. Trisyllables 1 25 



r CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Page 

1 . Quantity 14S 

2. Quantity different from accent 15S 

3. Greek accents different from Latin. 1S4 

4. Principles of quantity 19S 

5. Quantity in common discourse 206 

6. Quantity in oratory 209 

7. Quantity in poetry 216 

S. Our pronunciation violates quantity 245 



CHAPTER V. 

1 . Alteration of marks 252 

2. Corruption of accents 263 



CHAPTER VI. 

1 . Modern Greek 2S1 

2. Accentual poetry _ 291 

3. English poetry 299 

4. Conclusion 307 



ERRATA. 

Page 201, line 11, for adpavaos, I. aOpai rr 
— 207. — 24. /cr auo, 1. Son 



ON 



THE PRONUNCIATION 



OF THE 



GREEK LANGUAGE. 



CHAPTER I. 

1. INTRODUCTION. 2. PRESENT TIME FAVOURABLE FOR THE 

INQUIRY. 3. WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. 

- — 4. INQUIRY CONFINED TO THE ATTIC DIALECT. 5. ANA- 
LOGY BETWEEN GREEK AND LATIN. 6. MISTAKES IN IN- 
SCRIPTIONS. 7. SOUNDS OF ANIMALS. 8. PUNS. 

INTRODUCTION. 

1. THE Greek language is stamped by time, 
that great prover of men and things, as the most 
perfect which ever fell from the lips of man. Its 
strength and flexibility, its sonorous cadence, its 
facility of combination, its variety of termination, 
making the boldest inversion consistent with 
clearness, its harmonious proportion between 
vowels and consonants, pleasing to the ear even 
in spite of mistakes in pronunciation, — all these 
fit it for history and eloquence and poetry : and 



2 PRESENT TIME FAVOURABLE FOR THE INQUIRY. 

nobly has it been used. Still, after the lapse of 
ages, after changes of manners and of empires, 
we find in its records the best treasure-house of 
learning ; and in the force, the pathos, the sim- 
plicity, the dignity of the great men who wrote 
it, the purest criterion of taste. And, precious 
as these monuments of old Greece are, it can 
scarcely be said that they have not been duly 
appreciated. Most of the scholars who have 
studied them at all, have studied them profoundly. 
The origin of the language, its structure, its 
rhythm, the variety of its dialects, have engaged 
the thoughts and employed the pens of men far 
above pedantry. 

To the lovers and admirers of Greek (and for 
them alone the following pages have been written) 
no excuse will be necessary for starting afresh 
an inquiry into the pronunciation of their favour- 
ite language. Indeed, in the controversies to 
which this topic has already given rise, men of 
great eminence and learning have shown a degree 
of asperity, which affords more proof than we 
could wish of the interest which they took in the 
inquiry. 

PRESENT TIME FAVOURABLE FOR THE INQUIRY. 

2. The present time seems to favour the re- 
consideration of this question. The facility of 
travelling is daily making us less and less " com- 
pletely divided from the whole world." Our ears 
become gradually used to sounds and accents dif- 



WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. 8 

ferent from our own and different from each 
other. To Greece particularly a large portion of 
our countrymen are attracted, not merely by the 
interest of antiquarian research, but by the re- 
storation to civilized Europe of a country, which 
" was lost and is found." Then again, our con- 
nection with the Ionian Islands fills many civil 
and military offices there with Englishmen, many 
of whom are tempted, and some obliged, to make 
themselves masters of modern Greek, which na- 
turally leads them to inquire how far the modern, 
either as a written or as a spoken language, may 
be supposed to differ from the ancient. Neither 
will the subject be found to be so uncertain in its 
evidence as we might, from the nature of it, be 
led to expect. The scholar, who shall prosecute 
the inquiry with industry, will find himself agree- 
ably surprised by the fullness of the informa- 
tion which is to be gathered from the treatises 
of grammarians, or gleaned from sentences of 
authors, who have bv accident illustrated a sub- 
ject which they themselves never foresaw could 
become liable to a doubt. 

WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. 

3. With respect to the living languages, it may 
be said generally, that the pronunciation which 
is, is right ; the rule depends so much upon 
usage, and so little upon abstract principle, that 
we are content to speak modern languages as the 
natives now speak them, without troubling our- 

b 2 



4 WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. 

selves with inquiring what alterations they have 
made in the pronunciation of their ancestors. 
We use, as Quinctilian says, their current lan- 
guage as we use their current coin. And if we 
had considered the present inhabitants of Greece 
as speaking essentially the same language which 
was spoken there two thousand years ago, we 
should go to Athens to learn to speak Greek, for 
the same reasons which send us to Paris to learn 
to speak French. But we do not so consider 
them ; we look upon the modern Greek as es- 
sentially a distinct language from the ancient : 
but when did the race of ancient Greeks cease ? 
To this question it will be answered, that, though 
we cannot fix on any precise date when the 
people speaking the ancient Greek ceased to 
exist, their language was gradually altered, so as 
to be at last virtually destroyed by successive 
corruptions : that it is clear there was a period 
of classical purity, which was succeeded by a 
period of barbarism, though we may be unable 
to define with accuracy the extinction of the one 
or the commencement of the other. The conse- 
quence of this statement of the question is, that 
any line which we may draw between the age of 
purity and the age of barbarism must be arbi- 
trary, so that no two persons would fix it at 
exactly the same period ; and yet it is difficult to 
discuss the subject without drawing such a line, 
in order to know to what authorities we are to 
appeal for a decision of the various topics which 



WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. 5 

may arise. When I maintain that a word ought 
to be pronounced in such a manner, and in sup- 
port of this proposition I show that it was so pro- 
nounced at a given period, if that period be con- 
sidered by my opponent as an age of barbarism, 
he will be so far from admitting my conclusion, 
that he will consider the authority upon which I 
rely, either as affording no proof at all, or as 
leading to a directly opposite inference from that 
which I draw from it. To avoid any such mis- 
understanding, I propose to draw the line at the 
end of the second century of the Christian era, 
and to consider the ancient Greeks as having 
preserved their language uncorrupt down to that 
period. None of the writers on the subject have 
ventured to date any extensive or general cor- 
ruption of the structure or pronunciation of the 
Greek language earlier than this ; and the line 
will scarcely be considered as drawn too low, 
which excludes Longinus from the age of purity. 
Assuming then that the ancient Greeks, as far 
as regards the present inquiry, continued to the 
end of the second century, I propose, not to con- 
sider the pronunciation of any letter or word 
which prevailed after that period as any author- 
ity ; not that those, who have leisure and incli- 
nation to sift the subject fully, will ever be con- 
tent to leave the later writers unexamined ; but 
that the generality of readers will be better satis- 
fied with a small body of proof, drawn from 
writers of unquestionable authority, than with a 



6 WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. 

more elaborate inquiry, in which it would be ne- 
cessary at every turn to examine, not only what 
is said, but who has said it ; and in which I 
should be constantly running the risk of relying 
upon the testimony of witnesses, whom my op- 
ponents might think incompetent. But although, 
for this reason, the research be not carried lower 
than the second century in support of any pro- 
position advanced, yet an objection founded on 
a passage from an author of later date may well 
be answered by an appeal, either to another pas- 
sage from the same author, or to the authority 
of some other writer earlier than the one cited, 
though later perhaps than the second century ; 
because here the authority of the answer must at 
least be admitted by the person relying on the 
objection ; and he who w r ill disregard the answer 
as drawn from an age of barbarism, will for the 
same reason disregard the objection. Further, 
when an author later than the second century 
relates historically, and with competent means of 
knowledge, what was the pronunciation of an 
earlier period, he may be considered as an au- 
thority, not for his owm time, but for that of 
w 7 hich he writes. 

If the first rude efforts of the founders of the 
Hellenic race had been handed down to us, it 
might have been necessary to draw a line between 
the infancy and the maturity of their literature ; 
but as the earliest work extant, that of Homer, 
displays an uncommon degree of perfection in 



WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. 7 

the diction as well as in the sentiment, we may 
say, that, though some writers may be too 
modern, none are too ancient, to be considered 
as good authority. 

But supposing all authors born before the 
third century to be of authority, are all of equal 
authority ? In answer to this, it may be said, 
that, as the structure of the language, during the 
period which the inquiry is to embrace, remained 
the same, the pronunciation also may in general 
be presumed to have continued without material 
change : so that if we find a word pronounced in 
a given manner in the time of Athenseus, we are 
warranted, in the absence of proof to the con- 
trary, in supposing it to have been pronounced 
in the same way in the time of Homer : and 
what prevailed in Homer's time may be pre- 
sumed to have continued till the age of Athe- 
naeus. But in some cases w r e have proof to the 
contrary ; as for instance, we learn from Plato, 
that the first letter in Yi/mepa was written and pro- 
nounced in his own time in a different manner 
from that in which it had been in former times ; 
which way then of writing and pronouncing this 
word is the right way? Certainly the way in 
which Plato wrote and pronounced it, namely 
that which prevailed last. For the same reason 
why, in modern languages, the pronunciation 
which is, is right; so in Greek, the pronuncia- 
tion which is last is best, supposing it to have 
been altered within the period which we admit 
to have any authority at all ; so that if between 



8 WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. 

the time of Plato and that of Athenseus the pro- 
nunciation had been again changed, the last 
mode would still have been the best. — " Superest 
igitur consuetudo : nam merit pene ridiculum 
malle sermonem quo locuti sunt homines, quam 
quo loquantur." — Quinctil. I. 6. 43. So that all 
writers born before the third century, on points 
in which they do not contradict each other, may 
be cited as of equal authority. Where there is 
any discrepancy, the later author ought, for the 
reasons already given, to be considered as better 
authority than an earlier one. The writers who 
will be cited as authorities are the following : — 



Homer 

Hesiod . . 

Pindar 

Sophocles 

Cratinus 

Herodotus 

Euripides 

Thucydides 

Aristophanes 

Plato 

Demosthenes 

Aristotle 

Aristoxenus 

Callimachus 

Plautus 

Aristarchus 

Dionysius Thrax .... 

Cicero 

Virgil 

Horace 

Strabo 

Livy 

Dionysius of Halicar- 
nassus 



Born before Christ. 

1000 

950 

517 

498 

487 

484 

480 

471 

456 

430 

385 

384 

364 

290 

227 

203 

. 190 
. 106 
70 
65 
60 
59 



Born before Christ. 

Tryphon 20 

Born A. D. 

Apion 15 

Herodorus 15 

Quinctilian 42 

Juvenal 42 

Plutarch 50 

Aristides Quinctilianus 50 

Suetonius 60 

Draco 70 

Terentianus Maurus . . 83 

iElius Dionysius .... 87 

Aulus Gellius 100 

Hephaestion 106 

Apollonius Dyscolus . . 120 

Lucian 135 

Herodian 150 

Sextus Empiricus .... 170 
Alexander Aphrodisi- 

ensis . . . 177 

Diogenes Laertius 179 

Athenaeus 188 



50 



WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. i> 

I have fixed on the period of the birth of each 
writer, to enable the reader at a glance to see the 
interval between one and another. Where the 
exact date of the birth is unknown, I have taken 
the probable date, resulting from known events. 
For instance, I have fixed the birth of Aristo- 
phanes at 456 B. C. Not that the exact year of 
his birth is known ; but his first comedy was 
presented B. C. 426, at which time he may have 
been thirty years old : taking him to be seventy 
when he died (B. C. 386), would bring us to 
exactly the same date for his birth. The quota- 
tions from the early grammarians are not always 
from extant editions of their works, but often 
from later writers, who cite them, and must 
therefore be presumed to have read them. When 
Eustathius, for instance, informs us how Ari- 
starchus pronounced a word, I consider this to be 
good evidence of the proper pronunciation in 
the time of Aristarchus, though I am not able to 
produce the work from which the citation is 
made. 

I do not think it necessary to enter upon cri- 
tical inquiry into the merits of these writers, nor 
how far they varied in style or in judgement : it 
will surely be conceded to the Greek writers at 
least, that they knew how their own language 
was pronounced. Of the Latin writers cited, 
there is not one whose works do not show that 
he was well read in Greek. But as more exten- 
sive citations will be made from Quinctilian than 



10 WHAT WRITERS TO BE USED AS AUTHORITIES. 

from any other author, it may not be amiss to 
give a short account of him. 

Quinctilian was born about the time of the 
Emperor Claudius, either at Rome, or more pro- 
bably in Spain. It is however clear, that he w r as 
educated at Rome, that he pleaded causes there, 
and that he taught a school of rhetoric, with a 
degree of reputation which caused him to be 
selected as the teacher of part of the imperial 
family. He is supposed to have commenced his 
celebrated work on the education of an orator 
about the 47th year of his age : he certainly 
finished it about a century before the period which 
we have fixed upon as the era at which the purity 
of the Greek language may be assumed to have 
begun to decline. The fashion at Rome at that 
time was to cultivate Greek in their schools, 
either in conjunction with their native tongue, 
or sometimes even in exclusion of it. Quinc- 
tilian's accurate knowledge of Greek literature 
might safely therefore have been inferred from 
his celebrity as a teacher, had it not shone forth 
as it does through every page of his masterly 
w r ork. Imbued as he was with Greek learning, 
in daily communication as he must have been 
with Greek rhetoricians and grammarians, and 
constantly turning his mind to a comparison be- 
tween the structure, the genius, the merits, and 
defects of the two languages, waiting w 7 ith a 
knowledge of the world, w T hich is only acquired 
by taking part in the business of the world, and 



INQUIRY CONFINED TO ATTIC DIALECT. 11 

with that accuracy which is learned only by 
teaching, he may fairly be cited as an authority 
second only to Aristotle himself. But even sup- 
posing any doubt among scholars as to the purity 
of his taste or the accuracy of his judgement, it 
seems at least impossible to question his know- 
ledge of the pronunciation of the Greek language, 
which prevailed during the first century among 
well-educated persons ; and on this point alone 
will he be cited in the following pages. I quote 
from the Oxford edition, ' ' Marci Fabii Quincti- 
liani de Institutione Oratoria, Libri duodecim, 
juxta editionem Gottingensem Johannis Matthias 
Gesner," 1806. Each book is divided into sec- 
tions, and each section into paragraphs. I. 6. 10, 
means the first book, sixth section, tenth para- 
graph. 

INQUIRY CONFINED TO ATTIC DIALECT. 

4. It now only remains to be ascertained to 
what dialect our observations are to apply, or 
whether a separate inquiry is to be instituted as 
to each. The Greek language is divided into two 
great dialects, and these again subdivided each 
into two, so that we may sometimes find the 
same word written and pronounced four different 
ways, accordingly as it appears in an Ionic, 
iEolic, Attic, or Doric writer. It is not intended 
to pursue this inquiry with respect to all these 
dialects, but to limit it to the Attic, because that 
dialect seems by the common consent of the 
Greeks themselves to have been considered as 



12 INQUIRY CONFINED TO ATTIC DIALECT. 

having been carried to a higher degree of purity 
and perfection than any of the other three ; and 
because by far the larger proportion of the works 
now extant are Attic. The Alexandrian gram- 
marians especially, from whom the best infor- 
mation on our present subject is derived, wrote 
mainly with reference to that dialect. But though 
for the sake of precision the Attic dialect be 
fixed on so as to exclude others where they differ 
from it, there are so many points where they all 
agreed, that an inquiry into one will throw light 
upon the others. Indeed with regard to the pro- 
nunciation of each particular letter, it may be 
doubted whether all the dialects did not agree ; 
for if they had not, though their pronunciation 
was different, their orthography would perhaps 
have been the same. What the Attics called 
■n/tiepa the Dorians called a^'epa, and so wrote it; 
which makes it probable, not that the Dorians 
pronounced the letter H in a different manner 
from the Attics, for, if they had, they would have 
retained the word v^epa in their writings ; but that 
they gave to the first syllable of the word a spe- 
cific sound, which both they and the Attics re- 
presented by the letter A. If this be the case, 
any general observations on the mode of pro- 
nouncing the letter H by the Attics will be 
equally true of the Dorians, though it may still 
be true that the Dorians often substituted the A 
for it ; where, however, the orthography being 
the same the dialects differed in pronunciation, 



ANALOGY BETWEEN THE GREEK AND LATIN. 13 

if ever they did so differ, I shall consider my 
observations as confined to the Attic method of 
pronunciation, and reject the other, not as being 
wrong, for strictly there can be no right or wrong 
in such things, but as being simply different from 
the more widely received and more perfect dialect. 
It should be further observed that the pronunci- 
ation to which alone our inquiry ought to refer, 
is that of well-educated men, according to Quinc- 
tilian's rule, " Consuetudinem sermonis vocabo 
consensum eruditorum; sicut vivendi, consensum 
bonorum." — I. 6. 45. I doubt whether some 
critics, particularly among the modern Greeks, 
have sufficiently attended to this distinction. 

Having thus settled the period to which our 
inquiry is to extend, the degree of authority to 
be conceded to the authors who wrote during 
that period, and the dialect to which our obser- 
vations will principally apply, I shall proceed to 
inquire, first into the pronunciation of the par- 
ticular letters of the Greek alphabet; and, 
secondly, into the accentuation of words. 

ANALOGY BETWEEN THE GREEK AND LATIN. 

5. With respect to the pronunciation of the 
Greek letters, it is to be observed, that, in a case 
where so much precision is require^ little light 
can be derived from general analogy between the 
Greek and Latin languages. Want of attention 
to this obvious truth has caused much perplex- 
ity. Ingenious scholars have, in many cases, 



14 ANALOGY BETWEEN THE GREEK AND LATIN. 

proved to their own satisfaction the right mode 
of pronouncing the letters of a given Greek w T ord, 
from the Latin word corresponding with it ; 
though this reasoning assumes, not only a general 
analogy between the two words, but also, that 
each letter of each must have had the same 
sound as the corresponding letter in the other 
word ; and further that w T e know T exactly what 
was the sound of each in the Latin. Those who 
have made the deepest researches into the origin 
of the Latin language and its connexion with the 
Greek, will, perhaps, end as the Bishop of St. 
Davids has done, in concluding that, " we must 
be content with knowing, both as to the lan- 
guage and the race, that no notion of them, 
which either confounds or rigidly separates 
them, will bear the test of historical criticism." 
— ThirlwalFs Hist, of Greece, vol. i. p. 56. How 
entirely fallacious then must be any reasoning 
from analogy on so nice a subject as the pronun- 
ciation of letters ! To give an instance : that 
the Latin word fur is derived from the Greek 
<pd)p seems very probable from the meaning 
being the same, and from the general similarity 
of the words ; nor is there anything in the judi- 
cious scepticism of the bishop to prevent our 
supposing the Latin w r ord to be so derived . but 
how does this assist us in the pronunciation of 
the particular letters ? Is the Greek Q to be 
pronounced like the Latin U ? This would be 
a conclusion, which, to say the least of it, is so 



ANALOGY BETWEEN THE CREEK AND LATIN. 15 

improbable as to require strong confirmation. 
But perhaps it will be said, that, admitting a 
doubt about the sound of the corresponding 
vowels in these two words, at any rate the conso- 
nants have the same sound, the F, for instance, 
the same as the <1>. So far from it, that we shall 
find that the sound of the Roman F was so dif- 
ferent from any in the Greek language, that a 
Greek was unable to pronounce it. Again, what 
sound has the Greek B ? Analogy would give it 
three or four, namely 

P in papce, from f3aj3ai. 

V in volo, from fiovXo/mai. 

F in fremo, from fipeiuu) ; and perhaps 

B in superhus, from virepfiioc. 
Sus is probably derived from vq, sept em from 
eirrdy serpo from epTTw, salio from aXXojuai. Was 
then the Greek aspirate sounded like the Latin 
S ? Numerous other instances will occur to 
every reader, sufficient to convince him, that 
such general analogy affords no light to the 
niceties of the subject under examination, and 
ought either to be rejected altogether, or ad- 
mitted with the utmost caution. Indeed, the 
degree of similarity which subsists between the 
two languages as to their structure, and particu- 
larly that of their poetry, is sufficient to mislead 
us into an assumption, that the pronunciation 
may have been similar. We have high author- 
ity the other w r ay. Quinctilian says, li Latina 
mihi facundia, ut inventione, dispositione, con- 



1G ANALOGY BETWEEN THE GREEK AND LATIN. 

silio. ceteris hujus generis artibus, similis Graecse, 
ac prorsus discipula ejus videtur ; ita circa ra- 
tionem eloquendi vix habere imitationis locum." 
— XII. 10. 27. It is obvious that in transplant- 
ing a word from one language to another it must 
be subject to modification : 

" Et nova fictaque nuper habebunt verba fidem, si 
Grseco fonte cadant, parce detorta." 

Horat. Ars Poet. 52. 

In the case of English and German, supposing 
them to become dead languages, in such words 
as wagen and waggon, wein and wine, wunder and 
wonder ; how natural would be the assumption 
that the first letter of each was sounded alike, 
and yet how fallacious ! 

Another objection to this reasoning from the 
analogy between the two languages, is that it 
generally explains w T hat is uncertain by what is 
more uncertain. Admitting that the Q in </)w/o 
is to be pronounced like the U in fur, how was 
this last pronounced ? Must we follow the 
Italians, the French, the English, or the modern 
Greeks? for all these pronounce the U differ- 
ently. The preference will probably be given, 
and rightly given, to the Italian. But why is 
the modern Italian's pronunciation of U better 
authority than the modern Greek's pronuncia- 
tion of Q ? If we are to go back to the authors 
on the subject, we have at least as good direc- 
tion for the proper mode of pronouncing Greek 
as Latin, and I think in most cases better. But 



ANALOGY BETWEEN THE GREEK AND LATIN. 17 

although we can derive little information from 
the form which an old Greek word assumes after 
migrating to Italy, we cannot refuse our atten- 
tion to a species of evidence nearly akin to this, 
namely, the form which Greek writers give to 
Latin words, and especially names of men and 
places. Here we draw no conclusion from mere 
analogy of the two languages, or from a common 
root communicated in an imperfect state of the 
alphabet, or perhaps derived by each, without 
communication with each other, from an older 
language which has been the origin of both. A 
Greek writer, long after his own alphabet is com- 
plete, finds a Latin name, utterly unknown to his 
own countrymen, but which he wishes to com- 
municate to them. It is probable that he will 
adopt those Greek letters which exactly repre- 
sent the Latin sound, or in default of them, 
those which come nearest to it. Still, however, 
the knowledge we gain from such a translation 
is far from exact, from this reason, that we do 
not know what Latin letters had Greek letters of 
an equivalent sound ; nor, if we did, could we 
predicate with certainty, though we are very apt 
to assume, what was the pronunciation of the 
Latin letter. Further, in the names, particu- 
larly of celebrated men and well-known places, 
the Greek, instead of representing the exact 
sound, may choose to hellenize the word to 
make it more familiar to his own countrymen, 
as we have anglicized Lyons, Naples, and Flo- 



18 MISTAKES IN INSCRIPTIONS. 

rence. Besides, it is not unlikely that the names 
of well-known places in Italy, and of celebrated 
Roman men, particularly the emperors, would 
be pronounced according to the Latin manner, 
even by the Greeks, who in their inscriptions 
and coins might represent each single Latin 
letter by that Greek letter which had the same 
place in the alphabet, or the same shape with it, 
without consideration as to the way in which it 
would have been pronounced in any ordinary 
Greek word. 

This mode, therefore, of proving the identity 
of sounds, though not rejected altogether, will 
be used sparingly, and in aid of direct authority, 
but never against it. 

MISTAKES IN INSCRIPTIONS. 

6. Another mode of proving the right pronun- 
ciation, namely the mistakes in ancient inscrip- 
tions, though very frequently appealed to, and 
particularly by the modern Greeks, must be 
adopted with great caution. The ancient marbles 
are of the utmost importance to us in tracing the 
history of the alphabet, and enabling us to judge 
of the period at which particular letters or com- 
binations of letters came into use ; but when 
they contain such mistakes as show them to have 
been the work of men ignorant of their own lan- 
guage, this, though it take away nothing from 
their historical authority, makes them much less 
conclusive upon the particular points which we are 



MISTAKES IN INSCRIPTIONS. I!) 

now discussing. For instance, in an inscription 
mentioned by Dr. Wordsworth, the word e*jot£w- 
Orjdere is found for eKpilujOrideTai (he shall be 
rooted out). — Athens and Attica, Journal of a 
Residence there, by the Rev. C. Wordsworth, 
p. 145. 

This will be cited by the modern Greeks, as 
many similar blunders have been, as proving 
that the E and the AI were pronounced alike ; 
but we must always bear in mind that we are 
discussing the pure pronunciation of well-edu- 
cated Greeks, and how can we be sure that any 
one so ignorant as to write the future passive 
with an E had not vulgarisms in his pronuncia- 
tion, and particularly in that very syllable ? It 
may perhaps at first appear somewhat arrogant 
to assume, that we know how Greek ought to 
have been written better than the Greek who 
wrote it ; but the truth is, that a modern scholar, 
with the advantage of the whole treasure of 
ancient literature, and the collation of manu- 
scripts, is a far better judge of the orthography 
of the language than ninety-nine out of a hun- 
dred of those who spoke it as a living language, 
without taking the trouble to study it. The in- 
scription of Herodes Atticus, indeed, was not the 
work of an ignorant man ; but it was carefully 
and even pedantically framed to represent the 
orthography of an age long gone by, and may, 
perhaps, have elaborately followed even the 
blunders of antiquity. 

c2 



20 SOUNDS OF ANIMALS. 

When I speak of a mistake in an inscription, 
I mean a substitution of one letter for another, 
which was in use at the time, and which would 
have been used by a well-educated man. In 
early inscriptions one letter was used, even by 
the learned, for two or more sounds, not from 
ignorance, but from poverty. 

SOUNDS OF ANIMALS. 

7. Another rule which will perhaps cause a 
smile, but of which the violation has so much 
tended to embarrass the subject as to make a few 
words on it of use, is to take as authority the 
pronunciation of "men speaking articulately," 
and not the sounds of birds and beasts ; a rule, 
which, if it requires authority, is borne out by 
no less a master than Aristotle, who, in his de- 
finition of a primary or elementary sound, ex- 
cludes the sounds of animals : — ^Toiy/lnv pev ovv 

eari (pcjvr) . . . a^iaiperoQ' ov iraaa Se, a\X' ef i)c 
7T€(j)vKe (rvverrj yiveaOai (f)u)vrj' Kai yap rwv Or)plu)i> 
eiaiv aSiaiperoi (pwvai, wi> ovcepiav \eyio GTOiyelov . 

— Aristot. Poet. s. 34. Not that the sounds of 
animals may not be imitated by the human voice, 
and so expressed in writing as to give us gene- 
rally to understand what animal is intended ; but 
we can scarcely learn, with any degree of preci- 
sion, the sound of each letter of which such imi- 
tative word is compounded. For instance, when 
Aristophanes speaks of the kokkv^, which says 
kokkv, we can have little doubt that he is speak- 



SOUNDS OF ANIMALS. 21 

% 

ing of the same bird which we call the cuckoo ; 
but when we come to an inquiry into the sound 
of each letter, if we assume that the Greek word 
and the English word are both correct imitations 
of the same sound, and therefore exactly alike, 
we shall draw the conclusion that the Greek O 
was sounded like our U, and the Greek Y like 
our 00 : both of which inferences may be shown 
to be utterly false. Here again, take modern 
language as an instance : Hotspur says, 

I 'd rather be a kitten and cry " mew." 

First Part Hen. IV., act 2. sc. 1. 

Schlegel translates this " miau." Does then the 
English EW sound like the German IAU? 
Indeed, when we consider how imperfect our 
imitations of the sounds of animals must neces- 
sarily be, many of them being sportive imitations 
of the imitations of our children, we shall be sur- 
prised at the weight which has been given to 
them by philosophers and scholars. According 
to this reasoning, fiarpayoi in Aristophanes must 
mean ducks, as he makes them say Kod%, which, 
with the accent on the last syllable, is exactly 
"quacks"; and av, av, which he puts into the 
mouth of a dog, must be pronounced, wherever 
we meet with it, " bow wow," to say nothing of 
the interesting disquisition as to the species of 
dog in whose mouth these canine interjections 
are placed by the dramatist; the Erasmians 
being favourable to the theory that he must have 
been a growling mastiff, while their opponents 



22 SOUNDS OF ANIMALS. 

consider that this part of the dialogue was car- 
ried on by a yaffing cur. Again, these sounds 
imitative of animals are found in the comic 
writers, where they probably often, if not always, 
contained some allusion to passing events : we 
have handed down to us a single line of Cratinus, 

O §' riXLOioc (oawep irpoficiTOv /3t) j3r) Ae-ywi> |3a$i£ei. 

This line has been honoured with much notice 
by scholars : its metre has been reformed by 
Porson, and its pronunciation discussed by Eras- 
mus ; the only thing in it which seems never to 
have been thought of is its meaning : can we 
suppose that Cratinus, who was not so inferior 
to Aristophanes as not to be generally classed 
with him, w T ould have been content with so poor 
a joke as to describe a man saying fir\ like a 
sheep, unless there were some incident, either 
introduced in the context, or well known to the 
audience, which gave a point to the satire ? And 
yet we have this insulated line gravely put for- 
ward by critics as a proof of the precise manner 
in which the B and the H were pronounced by 
the Athenians in the time of Cratinus. The cor- 
rectness of the general imitation is not disputed : 
we might have understood, without the word 
7TjOo|3aTov, that the animal which said (3rj was 
probably a sheep, as an animal saying ^u would 
most likely be an ox ; but the question is, 
whether we can collect from it the exact manner 
of pronouncing either of the letters of which it is 
composed. These few observations having been 



PUNS. 23 

made upon the arguments drawn from the sounds 
of animals, it will not be necessary to make 
further mention of them ; not because they are 
beneath our notice, for, supposing the question 
itself worth considering, so is everything which 
throws light on it, but because they would tend 
merely to mislead us. 

PUNS. 

8. Another consideration which has not been 
enough attended to, is, that we are inquiring into 
the exact sound which each letter ought to have, 
and we have not proved our point when we have 
found one something near it. Unluckily, with 
some of the writers on this subject a pun is as 
good as a treatise, and the Joe Millers of olden 
time of as high authority as the Home Tookes. 
To give instances. Several writers, to prove that 
the EI diphthong ought to be sounded exactly like 
I, cite the two following jokes: the celebrated 
Thais, on her way to pay a visit to one whose 
nickname was Grason, or the Goat, being asked 
whither she was going, quoted in reply the verse 
of Euripides, 

Aiye? avvoiK^movaa rw TlavZiovos. 

Atheneeus, lib. 13. p. 586. 

Here the pun consists in the equivocation be- 
tween AiyeT (iEgeus) and aly\ (the goat), or, as 
Eustathius somewhat pompously explains it, Kara 

o/.io(j)(i)VLav Trapr)yj\TiKr)v Svo TrrtocretJV Sotikiov, rjrot 
tou Alyel T^owi/coac* /cat tou aiyi Jwikwc — Od. I, 



•>i PUNS. 

p. 362, ed. Basil. Diogenes, when in a bath, 
seeing a boy enter who was suspected of having 
stolen the clothes of the bathers, asked him 
whether he was searching for aXetpdnov (the oil- 
box) or a\X [(.idriov (another coat). — Diogen. 
Laert. in vita Diogenis Cynici, ed. Webster, p. 340. 
But here the object was fun and not philoso- 
phy. All that was wanting was, that the sounds 
should be sufficiently similar to raise a laugh. 
The second instance particularly, if treated as a 
strict demonstration, would show that the single 
A had precisely the same sound as the AA, and 
that the aspirate of Ipdnov was not sounded. 



25 



CHAPTER II. 

1. NUMBER OF GREEK LETTERS. 2. VOWELS. 3. DIPHTHONGS. 

4. CONSONANTS. 

NUMBER OF GREEK LETTERS. 

1. It will form no part of the plan of the fol- 
lowing essay to discuss the date of the invention 
of letters. The use of language must have pre- 
ceded the use of letters ; nor do we ever meet 
with the remotest hint that Cadmus taught the 
Greeks to utter sounds which they had never 
uttered before. The art invented or introduced 
by him seems, by common consent, to be consi- 
dered as limited to the giving to the sounds of 
the human voice a visible and permanent repre- 
sentation. But though the exact date of this 
invention is not important to the present inquiry, 
it is material to learn, whether letters were in- 
vented in Greece, or brought thither from an- 
other country, where a different language was 
spoken ; whether all the letters now in use were 
invented at once ; and if not, which are to be 
referred to an earlier and which to a later age. 
If the letters had been invented by a Greek, he 
would most probably have found a character to 



26 NUMBER OF GREEK LETTERS. 

represent each of the primary sounds of which 
his language was composed ; so that the letters 
subsequently invented, though convenient, w T ould 
not perhaps have been necessary. But letters 
brought from Phoenicia, supposing the Phoenician 
language materially different from the Greek, 
might often be so clumsy and imperfect a mode 
of representing Grecian language, as to drive the 
Greeks to add new letters of their own to express 
sounds not represented by the Phoenician alpha- 
bet ; so that the generally received history of 
the invention itself affords us no means of show- 
ing how many of the Greek letters represented 
primary sounds. We have strong and undis- 
puted testimony that several letters of the Greek 
alphabet were not invented till after Homer's 
time : if Homer could write his poems without 
them, they could not have been absolutely ne- 
cessary ; but if Homer was as illiterate as many 
men of letters have supposed, he may have 
uttered many sounds which the alphabet of his 
day had no means of representing. The lesson 
to be drawn from hence is one, not of despair, 
but of humility. We must be content to get 
what knowledge we can on the subject from au- 
thority and from tradition. Dionysius of Hali- 
carnassus says, that some have considered the 
primary letters or elements of language to be 
thirteen in number, and that the rest are but 
compounds of these ; others again have made 
them more numerous even than the twenty-four, 



VOWELS. 27 

which were then in use. — xiv. 92. To avoid 
repetition, it may be observed, that any quota- 
tion from Dionysius, without any other addition 
or reference, is to be considered to be taken from 
the treatise of Dionysius of Halicarnassus Tlepl 
(Twdeaewc ovo/mdnov. I quote from the London 
edition, in octavo, 1747, ed. Upton: xiv. 92. 
means the fourteenth section and the ninety- 
second page of this edition. 

It would have been more satisfactory if Diony- 
sius had expressly told us what were the thirteen 
letters, which were by some considered as the 
elements of the voice {aroiyeia t?Jc <£w»>?7c), and 
had added his own opinion : we shall, however, 
perceive as we go on what they were ; and 
perhaps Dionysius, though willing to take the 
number as he found it, saw no absurdity in re- 
ducing the primary letters to so small a number. 

VOWELS. 

2. To begin with the vowels. One would sup- 
pose, from the long and bitter disputes which 
have arisen on the pronunciation of the Greek 
vowels, that this branch of the inquiry was 
wrapped up in utter uncertainty, instead of being 
explained (as it is) in the clearest possible man- 
ner by the best- informed of all possible wit- 
nesses. Dionysius thus points out the mode 
in which the Greek vowels ought to be pro- 
nounced : — 

" The vowels are seven in number : two long, 



28 VOWELS. 

namely the H and the Q ; two short, namely the 
E and the O ; and thi\3e double- timed, namely 
the A, the I, and the Y, which are both extended 
and contracted • which some call double-timed, 
as I have done, and others changeable. All 
these are pronounced thus : the windpipe com- 
pressing the breath, the mouth disposed in an 
easy manner, the tongue not acting at all, but 
remaining unmoved. The long vowels, however, 
and those double-timed vowels which are made 
long in speaking, occasion an extended and 
continuous stream of the breath (rerajLievov kqI 

Sirfveicri rov av\6v rov irvev/LiaTOc) ; while the short, 

or those made short, are pronounced as if cut 
off with a single impulse of the breath and a 
short action of the windpipe. Of these, the 
most powerful and the sweetest in sound are 
the long vowels and those double-timed vowels 
which are lengthened in the pronunciation, be- 
cause they are sounded for a long time and do 
not cut short the course of the breath ; the short, 
and those which are shortly spoken, are inferior, 
inasmuch as they are small in sound, and emas- 
culate the voice. Of these long vowels, that 
which has the most agreeable sound is the A 
when it is extended : for it is spoken thus : the 
mouth as much opened as possible, and the 
breath directed upwards towards the palate. The 
second is the H, for it forms below, near the root 
of the tongue, the sound which is directed ac- 
cordingly, and not upwards ; the mouth being 



VOWELS. 29 

moderately opened. The third is the Q ; for in 
this the mouth is rounded and the lips disposed 
into a circle, and the breath strikes upon the ex- 
tremity of the lips. The Y is less than this ; for 
here a considerable contraction (<rv(rroXr7c yevo- 
/uevriG a^toXoyou) takes place in the lips themselves, 
so that the sound is compressed (nviyerai) and 
rendered shrill. The lowest of all is the I, for 
the impulse of the breath is against the teeth ; 
the mouth being but little opened, and the lips 
doing nothing to improve the sound. 

" Of the short vowels neither has a pleasing 
sound, but the less unpleasing is the O, for it 
opens the mouth more than the other, and re- 
ceives the impulse of the breath more in the 
windpipe." — xiv. 92. 

I can imagine, that when in the introduction I 
was sweeping away so many sources of informa- 
tion as being of no real authority on our subject, 
some of my readers may have been inclined to 
ask what authorities I left : and in answer I 
now say, that this chapter of Dionysius ought to 
have more weight than all the conjectures, how- 
ever learned, which have been raised from fancied 
similarities. Here, instead of guessing at the 
probable sound of a Greek vowel from its pro- 
bable sound in another country, we have a Greek 
stating how it ought to be sounded in Greece. 
In place of the authority of a stonemason, we 
have that of a philosopher, critic and historian, 
learned himself, and writing for the instruction 



30 VOWELS. 

of those who were to be liberally educated. In- 
stead of telling us what these sounds would be 
like, if they were barked, grunted, or bellowed, 
he takes pains to instruct men how to enun- 
ciate them exactly by a proper disposition of the 
organs, and particularly the tongue, which ani- 
mals, as far as my observation goes, do not use 
at all in modifying the sounds they utter. And 
lastly, the author's object is not to amuse, but to 
instruct ; wit consisting mainly in bringing dis- 
similar things together, judgement in distinguish- 
ing between things which at first sight appear 
alike. I cannot help thinking, that, if this trea- 
tise of Dionysius had been in early times made a 
text-book in schools, no controversy would ever 
have arisen upon the pronunciation of the Greek 
letters, or upon the nature of quantity. 

It may here be observed, first, that though 
Dionysius speaks of the vowels as seven, being 
the number for which characters had been in- 
vented, he evidently considers that the distinct 
sounds are but five, for he gives us no specific 
direction how to pronounce the E or the O, 
which he certainly would have done, had they 
been so different from the H and Q as to require 
a different disposition of the organs. He gives 
us the sound of the long A, and leaves us to pro- 
nounce the short A by disposing the organs of 
speech in the same manner, only dwelling a 
shorter time upon it. With respect to the Y and 
the I, we are left in ignorance whether the pro- 



VOWELS. 31 

nunciation pointed out is that of the long or of 
the short vowel, which shows clearly that both 
were pronounced with the same disposition of 
the organs, only with a different time. Are we 
then to conclude that the H and Q were of no 
use, inasmuch as they are only placed for sounds 
which were represented before ? or, if it w r ere 
useful to point out by distinct characters the 
long and the short sound of those two vowels, is 
the Greek alphabet imperfect, in wanting such a 
distinctive character for the A, the I, and the Y ? 
Perhaps to a certain extent both these proposi- 
tions are true. The time or quantity of syllables 
must have been first learned by the ear and not 
by the eye, and was doubtless established by 
usage long before letters were invented ; after 
that invention, a native Greek, as soon as he saw 
the letters of which a given word was composed, 
would require no further aid to teach him how 
long to dwell on each syllable. In the word 
AEMOE, as it was written before the invention 
of the H, his ear would teach him to dwell longer 
on the first syllable than on the second. Even 
where the same word has different meanings, ac- 
cording to its quantity, few cases can be imagined 
in which the context would not point out the 
meaning intended ; whether BP0T02, for in- 
stance, meant mortal or eatable. In poetry this 
would generally appear from the place which the 
word held in the verse. 

But though these arguments show the H and 



32 VOWELS. 

Q not to have been necessary, the very contri- 
vance and continued use of these letters seems 
to prove their convenience. Nor can it be said, 
that the fact of no such distinction having been 
contrived for the other three vowels would 
equally show such a contrivance not to have 
been convenient ; because, though men will not 
generally adopt any utterly useless invention, 
they will go on for centuries without inventions 
which are obvious and useful. And perhaps it 
would have been equally convenient if some such 
distinctive character had been framed for the other 
three vowels. It was chiefly for want of such 
a distinction that grammarians were afterwards 
driven to invent marks to distinguish long and 
short syllables. To draw an illustration from a 
modern language. A native Italian learns by his 
ear to pronounce the close o in volto (face) and 
the open o in volto (turned). And yet it would 
be very convenient for a foreigner learning 
Italian, if these two sounds, which are very differ- 
ent, were marked by a different character. And 
very probably those who, according to Dionysius, 
made the primary or elementary sounds more 
than twenty-four, considered the long sounds of 
A, I, and Y, as differing from the short, which it 
is clear they did in as great a degree as the E and 
O differed from the H and Q. Indeed, Sextus 
Empiricus expressly says, that he considers the 
vowels as ten in number. — Adv. Gramm. c. v. 
Secondly, this passage of Dionysius, if every ex- 



VOWELS. 33 

pression be read with as much care as it was 
written, will at once explain the nature of quan- 
tity, and solve all the difficulties which have been 
thrown by controversy round that simple sub- 
ject. The long and the short vowel were pro- 
nounced with the same disposition of the organs ; 
the only distinction being, that the sound of the 
latter was cut short as soon as formed, while the ? 
former was continued for a long time by a pro- 
tracted action of the breath. Nothing can be 
simpler or more intelligible than this distinction ; 
and yet it is to the want of understanding, or of 
attending to it, that a great part of the difficul- 
ties and the controversies on the subject of Greek 
pronunciation are to be attributed. It will be 
necessary to recur to this passage when we come 
to the consideration of accents. 

Thirdly, if the particular expressions by which 
Dionysius points out the mode of uttering each 
vowel had been as obscure as they are clear, still 
it would have been evident that no two of the five 
vowels were pronounced alike ; for if they were, 
he would certainly have had one distinction less 
to point out ; for instance, if the H and the Y had 
been pronounced alike, he would not have entered 
into any particulars as to the method in which the 
latter is pronounced, but would have contented 
himself with saying, that it was in the same 
manner as the H. So that if we had been left 
in utter ignorance as to the proper mode of pro- 
nouncing the vowels H, I, and Y, still we should 

D 



34 VOWELS. 

have been able to say with certainty, that the 
mode now prevailing in Greece of pronouncing 
these three vowels alike, was not the mode in use 
among well-educated Greeks in the time of Dio- 
nysius. 

A 

It seems clear from the description of Diony- 
sius, that this letter was pronounced as we sound 
the A in father. The modern Greeks so sound 
it, and so do most, if not all, the other nations 
of Europe. Our English mode of pronouncing 
the Greek A is peculiarly unfortunate, excluding 
the very sound which Dionysius thought the 
most agreeable. 

E. H. 

It seems equally clear that the E was pro- 
nounced as we sound the A in baker : the mo- 
dern Greeks so sound it. With respect to the 
H, we learn from Dionysius that it was pro- 
nounced like the E, only with a longer quantity 
or time. And this is expressly confirmed by 
Terentianus Maurus : — 

Literam namque E videmus esse ad ifra proximam : 
Sicut O et Q, videntur esse vicinse sibi. 
Temporum momenta distant, non soni nativitas. 

Apud Putch. p. 2393. 

The modern Greeks, however, give to the H 
precisely the same sound as the I, namely, like 
the E in mete. It is particularly necessary with 
regard to this letter to bear in mind the distinc- 
tion between vulgar and polite pronunciation. 



VOWELS. 35 

Many are the inscriptions of unquestionable an- 
tiquity in which the H and I are used for each 
other. These are cited by the modern Greeks 
and by their classical advocates as proofs that 
these letters were pronounced alike; and the 
same inference is drawn from the expression in 
Plautus, — 

Nam tuss blanditise mihi sunt, quod dici solet 
Gerrse germanee, atque sedepol liroe liroe. 

Pcsnul. act 1. sc. 1. v. 7. 

where liroe seems to represent the Greek Xrjpoi. 

I have already given the reasons why I think 
that mistakes in inscriptions ought not generally 
to influence us in deciding what was the pro- 
nunciation of the well-educated ; and in the par- 
ticular case now under consideration they are of 
still less weight, because opposed by the express 
testimony both of Dionysius and Terentianus. 
Neither can an expression, which is put into the 
mouth of a slave, afford any safe rule for polite 
speech. That liroe by no means affords us a 
certain guide as to the correct pronunciation of 
the letters of Xrjpoi, may further be inferred by its 
differing from Xrjpoi both in accent and quantity. 

That the H differed in sound from the I ap- 
pears plainly from a passage of Plato's Cratylus : 

OiaOa ort ol iraXaioi ol i)perepoi tw luira ev pdXa 
ey^piovTO, Kai ov^ ryciGTa al yvvaiKec, aiirep paXiara 
rr)V ap^aiau cf)iovr)v a(oZ i ovai' vvv Se, avri rov I, E, r) 
r)ra peraarpe(^>ovaiv' oiov, ol pev upyjaioraTOi Ipepav 
rrjv i)pepav eicaXovv, ol &e, epepav, ol Se vvv, i)pepai'. 

d2 



3C VOWELS. 

(c. 15.) It seems evident from the whole pass- 
age, and particularly from the expression (jxvvriu, 
that Plato is speaking of a change which had 
taken place, not in the orthography, but in the 
pronunciation of the word; that the ancients 
pronounced the first letter as an I, and the 
moderns as an H, which must therefore have 
differed. The same inference may be drawn 
from the manner in which the Dorian pronunci- 
ation of the H was represented : for instance, in 
the ' Ly sistrata ' of Aristophanes (v. 86) , where 
the Spartan woman is made to say 'Uei instead of 
ri/cet, the poet must have intended to ridicule her 
coarse and vulgar pronunciation ; but what could 
have been the object of writing the I instead of 
the H, if both were sounded alike ? 

I. 

The I was sounded like the E in mete. The 
modern Greeks so pronounce it : and here again 
the English, in differing from the modern Greeks r 
differ also from all the nations of Europe. 

O. a. 

The Greek O seems from Dionysius to corre- 
spond nearly with ours : the modern Greeks so 
pronounce it, only with a rounder and fuller 
sound, very grateful to the ear. 

I have never been able to perceive any differ- 
ence in the common discourse of the modern 
Greeks between the O and the Q. 



VOWELS. 37 

The description of Dionysius is perhaps con- 
sistent with the pronunciation of this letter, being 
like that of the U in lute ; but the contraction 
of the lips being considerable (afioAoyou), and 
the still stronger expression, that the sound is 
compressed or even suffocated (wl-ferai) , seem 
to make it highly probable that it was pro- 
nounced like the French U. " Perhaps the near- 
est letter to it in modern alphabets is the French 
accented U, the sound of which is indeed poor 
and slender ; but such Dionysius informs us that 
of the Greek Y was." — R. P. Knight, Analytical 
Essay on the Greek Alphabet: London, 1791, 
quarto, p. 22. 

Mitford says, " Strong national partiality only, 
and determined habit could lead to the imagina- 
tion cherished by some French critics, to whom 
otherwise Grecian literature has high obligation, 
that it was a sound so unpleasant, produced by 
a position of the lips so ungraceful, as the French 
U." — Hist, of Greece, ii. s. 3, note ; vol. i. p, 148, 
ed. 1820. And yet these very reasons incline 
me to side with the French critics, because the 
unpleasing sound and the ungraceful position of 
the lips agree with the description of Dionysius. 

The modern Greeks pronounce this letter pre- 
cisely in the same manner as they do the H and 
the T, namely, like the E in mete. I have already 
shown the impossibility of any two of the five 
vowels having been pronounced alike by well- 



38 VOWELS. 

educated persons in the time of Dionysius ; that 
three should have been written differently, with- 
out any distinction of sound, seems still more 
unlikely. Besides, it can be shown from the fol- 
lowing authority that the pronunciation of the Y 
was different from that of the I. Aristophanes 
in his comedy of the ' Clouds ' introduces Stre- 
psiades computing the debts in which the extra- 
vagance of his son has involved him, and reckon- 
ing among other things a bill for repairs of a 
chariot owing to Amunias — 

Tpels fival Supplaicov kal rpo^olv 'A/zvr/p. 

Nubes, v. 31. 

We learn from the scholiast that the satire was 
directed against Aminias, who, though invested 
with the dignity of archon, had exercised, or 
was perhaps even then carrying on,, the craft of a 
chariot-builder. But as there was a law forbid- 
ding the bringing of a magistrate of that degree 
by name on the stage, the poet evaded it by 
changing one letter of the name. Now as the 
law was not against the writing of the name of 
the archon in a comedy, but against the pro- 
nouncing it on the stage, it is clear that a mere 
writing of Y instead of I could have been of no 
use, supposing both those letters had then been 
pronounced in the same manner. Hermann reads 
the word in the scholium 'A/meiviac, and I dare 
say rightly (Aristoph. Nubes, ed. Hermann, Lips. 
1799) ; but this does not invalidate the inference 
drawn from it, as the ei was only the long iota. 



VOWELS. 39 

Indeed the modern Greeks, though great stick- 
lers for the purity of their own pronunciation, 
are pretty generally ready to admit that the Y 
could not have been pronounced like the I by 
well-educated persons in the time of Aristophanes. 
They content themselves with insisting that the 
alteration is small, which, supposing the Y to 
have been pronounced like the French U, is true. 
You will find, if you first dispose the organs to 
pronounce the E in mete, nothing more will be 
required to produce the French U but a trifling 
contraction of the lips. Still, however, the dif- 
ference, though trifling, is very perceptible ; and 
unless we can persuade ourselves that a modern 
Parisian would perceive no difference between 
emu and emi, we can scarcely suppose that the 
ears of Aristophanes would not have been shocked 
at 'kixvvlac, being sounded like 'Afxwiac, ; particu- 
larly as such a pronunciation on the part of the 
actor would have cost him a fine, probably much 
exceeding the bill for the wheels and driving-box. 
Aristophanes describes the sycophant snuffing up 
the smell of roast meat, v, v, v, v. (Plut. 895.) 
This, I think, agrees better with the pronuncia- 
tion of the French U than our E. 

The dispute as to the proper pronunciation of 
the H and Y was carried on with considerable 
warmth in the sixteenth century ; those who ad- 
vocated their pronunciation like the I being called 
Iotists, and their opponents Etists. The chief of 
the former was Reuchlin, and of the latter Eras- 



40 DIPHTHONGS. 

mus, from whence the terms Reuchlinian and 
Erasmian pronunciation. The Erasmians infer, 
from many passages of ancient authors, that the 
same sound could not have obtained for so many 
different vowels ; as for instance, 

ei jxoL H,vveir\. — Sophoc. (Ed. Tyrann. 854. 
<tv 3' ei7re fioi fur) furjicos. — Antig. 444. 

A modern Greek in reading these passages would 
give to every syllable, except the last of enre and 
the last of prjicoc, the same sound, namely the 
iotacism. 

DIPHTHONGS. 

3. If Dionysius had added a few sentences on 
the pronunciation of the diphthongs, how much 
study and how many contentions would have 
been saved ! Unfortunately, he has passed them 
over without the slightest notice. Can this be 
neglect, in a work showing such elaborate care ? 
Our guide quits us at the very point where we 
most stand in need of his aid, leaving us equally 
in doubt where we are and why he has left us. 
The consequence is, that the greatest uncertainty 
has prevailed, and probably ever will, on the 
manner in which the Greeks pronounced their 
diphthongs. 

The contest which I have mentioned between 
the Reuchlinians and the Erasmians was not con- 
fined to the pronunciation of the H and Y, but 
extended also to that of the diphthongs ; the 
Erasmians contending that they ought to be ex- 



DIPHTHONGS. 41 

pressed by blending two sounds together, and the 
Reuchlinians supporting the pronunciation of the 
modern Greeks, who make single sounds of them. 
Which party is in the right ? I think both. I 
have always been pleased with the fable which 
we learn in our infancy, and too soon forget, of 
the two knights, who after a stout contest as to 
the materials of a shield suspended on a tree, 
found that it was silver on one side and gold on 
the other, and that their dispute might have been 
saved, if they had looked on both sides. On 
such a subject it sounds almost ridiculous to 
boast of one's impartiality ; and yet it is curious 
to observe how few of the writers upon it have 
treated it with indifference or even fairness. The 
question seems, in the early days of European 
literature, and especially in the sixteenth century, 
to have excited a party-spirit very unfavourable 
to the elucidation of truth. Both parties pressed 
their own arguments too far, and both perverted 
or misunderstood the reasoning of their oppo- 
nents. In some instances the strength of argu- 
ment was enforced, or the lack of it supplied, by 
academical and episcopal authority. The Eras- 
mians, before they come to the passages in an- 
cient authors which seem to favour their mode 
of pronouncing particular diphthongs, found in 
the outset an argument on their side upon the 
very etymology of the word <ti<p9oyyoc (double- 
sounded) ; whereas, say they, if the sound had 
been single, though represented by two letters, 



42 DIPHTHONGS. 

it would rather have been called $iypa(j)0G. (Me- 
kerk. de ling. Grcec. vet. pronuntiatione , apud 
Haver camp., p. 123.) They further infer, from 
the division of some of the diphthongs into two 
syllables by the poets, and particularly by Homer, 
that each of the sounds must have existed in the 
syllable before it was so divided. (Ibid. 124.) 
Then Terentianus Maurus expressly says, that 
the origin of the term diphthong was, that two 
letters joined together are blended in sound into 
one syllable. 

Unde diphthongos eas 
Grascise dicunt magistri, quod duse junctce simul 
Syllabam sonant in unam. 

Apud Putch. p. 2392. 

We must be content, in the absence of Diony- 
sius, to follow Terentianus, whose work carries 
in every page abundant internal evidence that he 
was well skilled in the niceties, not only of the 
structure, but of the pronunciation and rhythm 
of Greek. His only defect is, that he chose to 
write in various metres, which, in a subject re- 
quiring great precision of expression, makes him 
appear quaint and pedantic, and sometimes ob- 
scure. The Erasmians are further able to pro- 
duce, in favour of their theory, many passages 
which will be discussed under the heads of the 
different diphthongs. 

The Reuchlinians, though unable to confute 
the general presumption to be drawn from the 
etymology and the Homeric usage of the diph- 
thong, appeal in their turn to other passages of 



DIPHTHONGS. 43 

authors, which, by showing that some at least of 
the diphthongs have a single sound, disprove, by 
reducing to absurdity, a theory, which, if good 
at all, is as good for one diphthong as another. 
These authorities are so discrepant as at first to 
appear to be utterly irreconcileable with each 
other ; and yet, as they proceed from writers who 
could not have been mistaken, no theory can be 
sound which rejects either. The most probable 
mode of reconciling them seems to be, by suppo- 
sing some of the diphthongs at least to have been 
differently pronounced in different ages. 

AI. 

The diphthong A I is that whose pronunciation 
is the most difficult to make out, if we merely 
weigh the conflicting testimonies ; but most 
simple, if we suppose the manner of expressing 
it to have varied at different times. 

It seems probable that in the word waia in 
Homer's time each of the four letters was fully 
sounded ; that by degrees the vulgar neglected 
this double sound, and changed it to a single 
sound, pronouncing it like our pace ; and that 
by degrees this latter sound prevailed, not only 
among the vulgar, but at last also among the 
well-educated. This theory has the advantage 
of reconciling all the authorities. The Homeric 
use here is in favour of the Erasmians : if Homer 
had pronounced waic, pace, as the modern Greeks 
do, making the sound single, like our long A, it 



-14 DIPHTHONGS. 

is difficult to account for his using it as a disyl- 
lable, as in 

,X A^/ 3' 6 irdis.—IL Z. 467. 

I say, using it as a disyllable ; for when the Eras- 
mians call this a diaeresis, they are assuming that 
the monosjdlabic form was the more ancient, 
which is at least doubtful. Buttmann thinks that 
in most words of this kind the contrary is the 
case ; that grammarians are accustomed to re- 
present everything of this kind as diaeresis, be- 
cause they always have the common form before 
their eyes, whereas the common form may as 
well be a contraction from the separate form, and 
in most cases is so ; and he gives an instance, ev 
for eu, from euc, there being no such word as eve. 
(Griesch. Gramm. 28. p. 48, note.) If this theory 
were universally true, and there is at least no 
improbability in it, it would follow, that in the 
original constitution of the Greek language there 
were no diphthongs at all, but that these arose 
from a contraction of two syllables into one by 
the early poets, and then by the dialects, and 
particularly the Attic. However this may be, 
we find the plural of waic used by Homer in the 
diphthongal form : — 

Avarrjvwy £e re Traces. — II. Z. 127. 

Admitting that waiSec be not the original Hellenic 
form, but contracted from ?rac§ec, it seems more 
probable that Homer should have pronounced 
both the vowels, though rapidly slurring them 
together, than that he should have substituted 



DIPHTHONGS. 45 

for these two sounds a third single sound, unlike 
to either. Plutarch, in his ' Convivial Disputa- 
tions/ or, as it may be freely translated, Table 
Talk, puts into the mouth of Protogenes the 
Grammarian the reasons why A stands at the 
head of the letters. First, as a vowel, it is more 
worthy than the consonants ; then, as being one 
of the common or double-timed vowels (^i^povcjv) , 
it is of greater power than those which are exclu- 
sively either long or short ; and lastly he says, that 
of the three double-timed vowels the A takes the 
lead {riyeiioviKwrarriv e\eiv ra£,iv), because it stands 
before the other two, but never after them : ovre 

tou IwTa Sevrepov ovre rov Y Tarrofxevov eQeXei 
opoXoyeiv, ovSe opo7raQeiv, loare ov\\afir\v uiav ef 
ap.tyolv yeveaQai, aXX wcnrep ayavaKrovv Kai cltto- 
Trrjcwv iciav apyjiv Ztfreiv aei' €.K.eiv(j)v oe OTrorepto 
j3ovAet irpoTarTOfxevov ctKoXovOovpri Kai gvix<^wvovvti 
y^prjcjOai, Kai ovWafiaG ovopariov iroielv, ioawep rov 
AYPION, Kai rod AYAEIN, K al tou AIANT02, 
Kai rov AIAEISGAI, Kai fxvpKDV aWcjv. ^Lv/unroaiaK. 

npopXrip., Lib. IX. Qusest. 2. s. 2. vol.iii. p. 1045, 
ed. Wyttenbach. Oxon. 1797. 

This theory as to the pronunciation of the AI 
accounts for Dionysius making no mention of it. 
Having learned how to pronounce the A and the 
I, we need no further instruction to pronounce 
them consecutively. That Dionysius himself so 
pronounced them in reading Thucydides, appears 
pretty evident. In treating of the different styles 
of composition which are to be observed with 



46 DIPHTHONGS. 

reference to the arrangement of words, and the 
harshness or smoothness which results from neg- 
ligence of such arrangement, or attention to it, 
Dionysius divides the styles into three, the au- 
stere, the florid, and the middle. Besides care- 
lessness as to the roundness and equality of the 
periods, one characteristic of the austere style is, 
great negligence as to the harmony with which 
words and parts of sentences fit, or, as we com- 
monly say, run into each other. The writers 
whom he mentions as examples of this style are, 
in epic poetry, Antimachus and Empedocles, in 
lyric poetry Pindar, in tragedy iEschylus, in hi- 
story Thucydides, in oratory Antiphon. After 
an analysis of a passage of Pindar, to which I 
shall have occasion to refer to show his pronun- 
ciation of the 01, he proceeds, in further illus- 
tration of his remarks, to criticise the opening of 
the history of Thucydides : QovkvSISyiq 'AOrivcuoa 

%vveyoa\pe tov TroXe/uov twv TieXoirovvrjcritjjv Kai 'AOrf- 

valwv. After remarking on the harshness arising 
from one word ending with 2 while the next 
begins with S, and from the combination of the 
four subsequent words, he comes to the two last, 
upon which he remarks, that they destroy the 
continuity of the harmony, and oblige the reader 
to make a sensible interval between them, be- 
cause the sound of the I and the A are incapable 
of being blended : — ''En irpoc tovtoiq r\ twv (puvr)- 

evrwv irapaOeaic, r\ Kara t??i> reXevraiav tov kw\ov 
TOvSe yevojuievri, ev tw " Kai 'AOiivaiwv " SiaKGKpovKe 



DIPHTHONGS. 47 

to avve^ec, tyJq apjuoviac, Kai §ie<?Ta.K€, navv ai(jOr}Tov 
rov fxera^v \a{3ov<ra y^povov. aKepaaroi re yap ai 
(j)wi'cu rov re I Kai rov A, /cat airoKonrovaai rov i]yov. 

— xxii. 196. 

Observe that he does not attribute the harsh- 
ness merely to the one word ending with a vowel 
and the next beginning with one, but expressly 
to the incompatible nature of the I and the A, 
which has the effect of cutting off the sound and 
preventing the words from running harmoniously 
into each other. If it be objected, that this mode 
of sounding both the vowels of the diphthong 
consecutively makes the diaeresis of the poets 
unnecessary, as ircuc, so pronounced would vir- 
tually be 7ro|iq, I answer, that, in the first case, 
both vowels, though separately sounded, are 
passed over hastily so as to form one syllable,, 
while in the second a sensible pause is made be- 
tween them. It should be remembered that Te- 
rentianus does not say that the component vowels 
of a diphthong are blended into one sound, but 
into one syllable, and the diaeresis, of which the 
poet availed himself to break it into two, if he 
ever did so, would be expressed by a marked 
pause between the A and the I, as in rj wdic acppuv 
(II. A. 389) ; and the diaeresis would be still 
more strongly marked in *A^ $' o 7ra\ic, where the 
two syllables are component parts of two differ- 
ent feet. 

I would here observe, that though Dionysius, 
in reciting the history of Thucydides for the im- 



48 DIPHTHONGS. 

provement of correct scholars, would, no doubt, 
pronounce the Kal in the manner above mention- 
ed, it by no means follows that such a pronunci- 
ation was retained by the common people of his 
day, nor at all unlikely that Dionysius himself, 
in addressing his slave, would pronounce iral like 
our English word pay. But however this may 
have been, we find that by the time of Sextus 
Empiricus, who wrote about 220 years after Dio- 
nysius, the AI had no longer a double sound, but 
was pronounced like a simple vowel. Sextus, in 
his treatise against the grammarians, after show- 
ing that, on the hypothesis of the letters O and Q 
and E and H being virtually the same, the actual 
number of vowels ought rather to be five than 
seven, goes on: — "On the other hand, some 
philosophers will have it, that there are more 
elementary sounds (aroi^ela), which have a differ- 
ent power from those which are commonly taught, 
such as AI and OY, and whatever is of the same 
nature. For in general an element is to be di- 
stinguished as such from its having a sound not 
compounded, but single, such as that of A, E, O, 
and the rest. Since, therefore, the diphthongs 
AI and EI are simple and single, these must also 
be elementary sounds ; and the proof of their 
simplicity and singleness is as follows : a com- 
pound sound does not continue to the end as 
it first strikes the ear, but is changed in the 
course of its extension. But a simple sound, 
such as ought really to be classed among the 



DIPHTHONGS. 49 

elements, on the contrary is unchanged from the 
beginning to the end. As, for instance, when 
we give an extended pronunciation to PA, it is 
obvious that the ear does not catch the same 
sound at the first vibration as at the last ; but it 
will be struck in the first instance by the pro- 
nunciation of the P, and when that has passed 
away, it will afterwards be impressed with the 
genuine sound of the A, for which reason PA, 
and whatever resembles it, cannot be elementary 
sounds. But when we pronounce the AI there 
is nothing of the kind ; for the same character of 
sound is heard at the end as at the beginning, 
so that AI will be an elementary sound : and on 
the same principle, since the sound of EI and of 
OY is heard from the beginning to the end, single, 
simple, and unchanged (jiovoeiS-nt, kcu davvOeroc 
Kal dfieTafioXoc) , these will also be elementary 
sounds." — Adversus Grammaticos, cap. v. 

What then was this single sound of AI, which 
had obtained, before the end of the second cen- 
tury, so firm a footing among men of education, 
as to be taken for granted, and made an instru- 
ment for the sceptical philosopher to do, what he 
candidly owns was the chief object of this part of 

his work, namely OXifieiv tovg ypa/uLfiariKovc? I 

say among men of education, for Sextus, in ex- 
posing the ignorance of the learned, could have 
founded no argument upon a pronunciation which 
obtained only among the vulgar. The Reuchlin- 
ian answers, that it was the same sound as the 

E 



50 DIPHTHONGS. 

modern Greeks give to it, namely that of E ; but 
this is scarcely reconcileable with the expression, 
that these new elementary sounds have a differ- 
ent power from those which are commonly taught, 
of which E was one. The single sound of AI 
among the educated, was probably something like 
the E, though a little differing from it, while with 
the vulgar they were exactly identified. And 
that this had obtained for nearly 500 years, we 
learn from the following distich of an epigram 
of Callimachus : — 

Avaavlr), av <?e vai\i kclKos KaXos' aWd Trpiv e»7re?v 

TOVTO (TCKptOS, fl^lO <pr](Tl TIS, (iWoS €^€l. 

Brunch Analecta. Argentorat., vol. i. p. 461. 

There is little to be said either for the wit or the 
morality of these lines, but it is quite clear that 
what point there is, consists in the word vaiy), 
which has been dragged in for the very purpose, 
being an echo or rhyme to eyei. Neither do the 
remarks made in the outset on the dkeipariov of 
Diogenes and the alyl of Thais apply here. This 
is not a mere pun, in which the jest is good, if 
the hearer be reminded of two opposite things ; 
the expression ?7x^ requires that the two words 
should sound alike, and if we pronounce vai-^l 
either with the A and I consecutively, as Homer 
probably did, or as we commonly do in England, 
the epigram becomes utterly unintelligible. Cal- 
limachus, who wrote 240 years before Dionysius, 
would probably, in reciting Thucydides, have 
pronounced it as Dionysius did ; but this epigram 



DIPHTHONGS, 51 

would meet such a pronunciation of vai^l as he 
heard daily in the streets of Alexandria. 

I have already stated, that as the discussion 
turns on the pronunciation of the educated, I 
found no argument on the mistakes in inscrip- 
tions. I could produce many inscriptions in 
which the E is substituted for the AI, as AAK- 
MEONIAAI, AGHNEQN for AGHNAIQN, which 
can only be accounted for by supposing the sounds 
to have been the same among the majority of the 
people. Neither do I think any analogy to be 
drawn from the Latin a safe guide ; but it may 
be remarked, that it seems probable that in some 
of the Latin diphthongs both vowels were origin- 
ally sounded, as Quinctilian attributes Virgil's 
use of such an inflexion as pictai to his fondness 
for antiquity : — " AI syllabam, cujus secundam 
nunc E literam ponimus, varie per A et I effere- 
bant, quidam semper ut Graeci : quidam singu- 
lariter tantum, cum in dativum vel genitivum 
casum incidissent, unde pictai vestis, et aulai, 
Virgilius, amantissimus vetustatis, carminibus 
inseruit." — i. 7. 18. 

The theory that the I in AI and 01 might be 
preserved in reciting old poets and historians 
long after it had been omitted by the vulgar, or 
even in the common discourse of the learned, 
will also apply to the I adscript, which we find 
used to mark certain inflexions of nouns and 
verbs ; and will enable us to reconcile passages 
which at first seem to be discrepant. On the 

e 2 



52 DIPHTHONGS. 

passage in Pindar, AioOev re /me avv 'AyXdiai i'oWe, 

Dionysius points out an instance of harshness, 
that 'AyXaiai, which ends with an I, is followed 
by t'Sere, which begins with one. (Tw, avv 'AyXaiai, 

etc to I Arj-yovTi, to, icere wopevuevrec aoioaic, apyo- 

juevov ciVo tov I. — xxii. 190.) On the other hand, 
Strabo, speaking of an inscription in which the 
dative avSrj was written without the I, adds, 

7roXXot yap \(oplc tov I ypa(j)ovai ra\ oVn/cac, Kal 
€KJ3a\Xov(TL ye to eOoc (pvaiKrjv airiav ovk e\ov (Lib. 

xiv. p. 959, ed. Amstel.). Unless the assertion, 
that the writing the I has no natural cause, 
means, that it is not sounded, it is not easy to 
understand the passage. And Sextus Empiricus 

Says, Ov^ev yap fiXairTOfxeda, eav re avv tw I ypa- 

<p(Dll€V TT}V SoTlKTIV TTTtoGlV, 6ttV T€ fill (AdveTSUS 

Grammatic. c. 9.). Apollonius says that the 
word vlkw may be either of the first or second 
person, according to the mood : vikw (I conquer) 
being the indicative, and vlkQ (be thou conquer- 
ed) the imperative : he adds, that it may also be 
made of the third person by adding the I, and 
so making it of the optative mood, in which case 
it would have the same pronunciation (ofiwc youi> 

aKovopevov avvepiriiTTei ry irpoc to wpujrov Kal Sevre- 

pov -rrpocpopa), Syntax, iii. 7. p. 211. 

The mode now generally adopted of writing 
the I under the word can be no guide to us, as 
that mode was not adopted until so late as the 
thirteenth century. Porson on Eurip. Med., v. 6. 



DIPHTHONGS. 53 

01. 
I have first discussed the AI, not from alpha- 
betical arrangement, but because the various au- 
thorities enable us to learn its history better. 
That the 01 also was originally pronounced with 
the consecutive sounds of the letters of which it 
is composed, may be collected from the criticism 
of Dionysius in the same chapter upon Pindar, 
whom he cites as an instance, among the lyric 
poets, of the austere style ; and finds the same 
fault with many of his combinations of words, as 
with the Kal 'AOvvaiwv of Thucydides, that they 
do not run harmoniously into each other. The 
passage chosen is the ode which commences with 

these words : Aevr ev X°P° V OXv/unrioi, eirl re 

kXvtciv 7T€fXTTer€ yapiv Oeoi. After remarking on 
the harshness resulting from the X following the 
N in the words ev x°P° v > ne proceeds in the fol- 
lowing words : — " The branch which immediately 
follows, namely eiri re icXvrdv irefxirere \^P lv i stands 
off from the former by a considerable interval, 
and in many parts runs harshly and inharmonic 
ously : for it begins with the vowel E, which 
comes after another vowel, namely the I, with 
which the preceding word ends ; and yet neither 
of these is cut off by synalcepha or collision with 
the other, neither is the I placed before the E in 
one syllable ; but a pause takes place between, 
which distinguishes the two branches, and gives 
each of them a decided emphasis of its own." — 
xxii. 184. This passage does not make so de- 



54 DIPHTHONGS. 

cidedly against the Reuchlinians as the criticism 
on Thucydides, because, as the modern Greeks 
pronounce the 01 exactly like the I, the remark 
of Dionysius would be equally well-founded, if 
we suppose that he so pronounced it himself. 
But if we take the whole context and compare it 
with the other criticism on the Kal 'AOtivalwv, the 
more natural result seems to be, that in each 
passage Dionysius sounded both the vowels. 

The only other authority which I have found as 
to the pronunciation of 01 is a well-known passage 
of Thucydides, who after describing the plague 
which occurred at Athens during the Peloponne- 
sian war, says, that the event brought up the re- 
collection of an ancient tradition, foretelling a 
Dorian war accompanied by a plague, f/ H£a Aw- 

piaKoc 7roXe^toc, Kai Xoifjioc cljjl avrio. Upon which 

the historian remarks, with his usual knowledge 
of mankind, that if, at some future period, a 
Dorian war should arise, accompanied by a 
famine, then they will recite (aaovTai) this pro- 
phecy afresh, with the alteration of Xi^oc, instead 
of Xoi/lioq. (Hist. Lib. ii. s. 54.) This passage is 
in favour of the Erasmians ; for if Xipoc and Xoi/moc 
were pronounced alike, Thucydides would rather 
have used the expression ypaifiowi than aoovrai. 
They can scarcely have had the same sound in 
the line of Hesiod ; — 

Totalis £' ovpavoQev juey' eirijyaye Trij/ua Kpoiiwv 
AljXOV VfXOV kuI \otfxvv. 

"Epy. Kat 'Up. v. 242. 



DIPHTHONGS. 5:, 

The argument from diaeresis does not seem to 
apply to this diphthong ; for though we find <xto- 
vokvrec oiarol (Od. <E>. 12.), we never find o'kttoq in 
Homer, and why should not the trisyllabic form 
have been the more ancient ? 

EI. 

When we come to the EI, we must give up 
the Erasmian theory altogether, unless we will 
reject the clearest testimony of Greeks and of 
learned Romans who lived when Greek was 
spoken in its purity. We have not only the 
authority of Sextus already cited, that in his 
time the sound of EI was single, but we have 
none that it was ever otherwise. Neither does 
the argument from the diaeresis apply here, as I 
am not aware of any word in which Homer re- 
solves the EI into ei', the 7rvpl XapirerQwvri eiKrrju 
(II. A. 104.) not being a diaeresis from e'ucerriv, 
but more probably a reduplication before the 
digamma, FeFiKrriv, from Fcikoj. Neither is 
'Arpel^c formed by diaeresis of a diphthong, but 
is a patronymic, regularly formed from "Arpeoc, 
or more properly ArpeFoc from ArpeFc, which is 
proved by the fact, that Homer never uses it 
except in a foot where it can be a dactyl; no 
verse in Homer beginning with Tola 'ArpeiSyaiv, 
though the Attic tragedians afterwards formed 
it by crasis into 'Arpel^Q. So re/^ei' is not a 
diaeresis, but the regular dative, from whence 
relyei was subsequently formed. 

It seems that in the early period of the alpha- 



56 DIPHTHONGS. 

bet E stood for three distinct sounds : for a short 
E, as in EXQ ; for a long one, as in AEM02 ; and 
for a long I, as in EMI. We find it in this last 
form in the Sigean inscription, now in the British 
Museum, $ANOAIKO EMI (Chishull, Antiq. 
Asiat. p. 4 ; H. J. Rose, Inscriptiones Graced, 
p. 1. Cantab. 1825.), though in an earlier inscrip- 
tion on the lower part of the same stone it is 
said to have been written EIMI, but this is not 
now legible. So in a coin of Alexander the 
Great, AAEHANAPEA stands for 'AAe^cpem. 
(iiber die Aussprache des Griechischen und i'iber 
die Bedeutung der Griechischen Accente, von Dr. 
Karl Fr. Sal. Liskovius, Leipzic, 1825, p. 67.) 
In a marble found in Attica, copied by Four- 
mont, which Rose supposes to have been cut 
about 420 B.C., we find EI7E2TATE for eVe- 

ararei, and T1PYTANE2 for Trpvraveic, though 

there is EIIEIAE in the same inscription (Rose, 
Inscript. Gr. p. 117.). The H, which before had 
simply stood for an aspirate, was afterwards 
adopted to express the long E, and the combi- 
nation EI, perhaps as arbitrarily, for the long I. 
We have the following authorities, that the EI, 
though classed among the diphthongs, was neither 
more nor less than the long iota. To begin with 
Terentianus : — 

E, deinde Iwra, Grseca diphthongos EI sonat, 
Non erit semper necesse copulatas scribere, 
Seii Latina seu jugetur Greeca longa syllaba ; 
'Iwra solum quod videmus sa?pe produci, vel I. 



DIPHTHONGS. 57 

"Wtov nam sic jubemur scribere et producere : 
Dico sive fido longse sunt priores syllabse : 
Nee tamen nos E necesse est, post et I subnectere. 
Nee potest diphthongus aliter e duabus Uteris 
Ista componi, nisi ante principali in corpore 
E subesse ratio monstret, atque origo nominis. 
Aelfjos inde sic notamus, quia Hos deprenditur. 
Inde Mtrfeiav te oportet scribere isdem literis, 
Quia (>eos non minus et istic, ut videre propalam est, 
Ipsa demonstrat subesse compositio nominis. 
Scribimus si quando vTkos, luira solum sufficit, 
Nulla prsecedens origo quia subesse monstrat E. 

p: 2393. 

Hence it appears that Sei/uoc was sounded like 
i>?koc, and the reason for writing them differently 
is to be referred only to their etymology. " Diu- 
tius duravit, ut E, I, jungendis, eadem ratione 
qua Greeci EI uterentur : ea casibus numerisque 
discreta sunt, ut Lucilius prsecipit : 

Jam pueri venere, E postremum facito atque I, 
Ut puerei plures fiant : 

ac deinceps idem : 

Mendaci furique addes E, cum dare furei 
Jusseris : 

quod quidem cum supervacuum est, quia I tarn 
longae quam brevis naturam habet, turn incom- 
modum aliquando." — Quinctil. i. 7, 14, We 
are so used to identify the E with the sound to 
which it was last restricted, namely that of the 
Epsilon, that it is startling to us to find that it 
ever represented the long Iota. But not only 
was this one of the sounds of E, bat there is 
great reason to suppose that it was its original 



58 DIPHTHONGS. 

sound. This becomes highly probable from the 
fact, that, whenever the E was spoken of as a 
letter, it had that sound, as appears from the 
curious treatise of Plutarch on the EI at Delphi. 
This celebrated offering to Apollo seems to have 
been the single letter E cut out in wood ; and 
various conjectures seem to have been raised as 
to the persons who offered it, and the meaning 
of the offering itself. It is throughout the whole 
dialogue called a letter, particularly in the first 
section, and again in the third, where it is sug- 
gested, that the real number of the wise men of 
Greece was not seven, as vulgarly supposed, but 
five ; and that these five met together and dedi- 
cated to the god that letter, which is fifth in 
order, and which stands for the number five : 

avadelvai twi> ypa/nfiarojif o t# re ra^ei weinirTOV ecrn, 

Kal tov api9f.iov tu wevre §r}\<u. In the fourth sec- 
tion it is called the second of the vowels, elvai Se 

Tip ra^ei Sevrepov rore EI tljv (j)h)vr)evT(t)v cltt apyjic 

Another person, without suggesting that the first 
speaker has made any mistake in the manner of 
writing the letter, starts a totally different theory : 
he thinks that the offering means not five, but 
whether ; because all those who consulted the 
oracle prefaced their demand with that word, 
praying for a response, whether (EI) they should 
conquer, whether they should marry, &c. A 
third party to the dialogue, in a passage of stri- 
king beauty and sublimity, translates the offer- 
ing thou arty as a devout acknowledgement of 



DIPHTHONGS. 59 

that eternity of the Godhead, which alone can 
deserve the name of being (s. 17.). 

In no part of the dialogue is there any allusion 
to the I as having any force or meaning of its 
own, but E and EI are considered as synonymous, 
and as represented by a single letter. On the 
whole, we are warranted on the faith of these 
authorities in pronouncing the EI as a long Iota, 
and so far at least our English pronunciation is 
right, that we pronounce both alike, though 
neither correctly. 

OY. 

The history of the OY bears a strong analogy 
to that of the EI. 

I can find no trace of the two letters having 
been ever sounded, nor of any such form in 
Homer as tovto for towto. The letter O had 
originally three sounds : that of the omicron, as 
in XP0N02 ; that of the omega, as in AN9P0- 
IIOE ; and a third sound, as in the last letter of 
the genitive AN9P0II0, for so it was in early 
times written, as we find 3>ANOAIKO for $aw- 
Siicov in the Sigean inscription, now in the 
British Museum. So we find AIIOAONAI and 
BO AH in an Athenian inscription, made pro- 
bably about 420 B.C. {Rose, Inscript. Gr. p. 117.) 
Dr. Wordsworth saw 9AN02H2 on a tomb, 
which he thinks may be as old as the Pelopon- 
nesian war (Journal, p. 215.). So TO AYTO 
ENIAYTO for tou avrov kviavrov in the inscrip- 



60 DIPHTHONGS. 

tion on the monument called the Nointelian 
marble, because brought to Paris by the Marquis 
de Nointel, and now in the Louvre. It records 
the names of the Athenians of the tribe of Erech- 
theis, who had been killed in the war, and was 
erected 458 B.C. One of the list is 60KY- 
AIAE2, and yet we find <E>P0YPAPX02 in the 
same inscription (Rose, Inscript. Grceca, p. 105 ; 
Montfauc. Pal. Gr. Lib. ii. p. 134.). 

Tlavrec, 01 apyaloi tm O airey^piovTO, ov fwvov e(p 
rjc; vvv TUTTeTai cvvafjieuc' aWa Kai ore rrjv cicpOoy- 
yov Siaarijialvei, §ia rov O ^uoyoi> ypa(pov<Ji. Athen. 

xi. p. 466. 

That this third sound of O was its primitive 
sound, seems probable from the fact, that O was 
so called when it was spoken of as a letter of the 
alphabet. " Nam ilia vetustissima transeo tem- 
pora, quibus et pauciores literal nee similes his 
nostris earum formae fuerunt, et vis quoque di- 
versa : sicut apud Graecos O literal, quae interim 
longa et brevis, ut apud nos, interim pro syllaba, 
quam nomine suo exprimit, posita est. 5 ' — Quinct. 
i. 7. 11. There are instances in one single line 
of an inscription of the O standing for all three 
sounds : 

EXGPON A' 01 MEN EX02I TA$0 MEP02. 

Monumental Inscription on the Athenians who fell at 
Potidcea (B.C. 432.), found at Athens and now 
in the British Museum. 

This pronunciation of O when spoken of as a 
single letter appears from the following epigram, 



DIPHTHONGS. 61 

in which Thrasymachus sets forth the letters 
which spell his name : — 

Tovvofxa, drJTa, pQ, a\(f)a, crdv, Y, fiv, a\(j>a, ^t, oh, adv, 
Yiarph Xa\icri?io)', r; de Teyy*] aoQict. 

Athenceus, x. p. 454. 

So in a quotation from Callias describing the 

vowels : 

"A\0a \xovov, 10 yvvaiKes, ei re (ievrepov 
fiorov Xeyeiv xpr/. ical rplrop \xovov y kpels 
■qr. dpa (pyjcrio crot to reraprov t av fxovoi', 
liora ; 7ref.iirT0V ou. 

Ibid. 

When Philip sent to demand of the Spartans 
that they would admit him into their city, they 
with their accustomed brevity replied by writing 
a single letter O, which being pronounced OY, 
answered for them in the negative : 'Edv &e j3ou- 

Xrjrai \aK(i)Vi£eiv avrrjv (.i6vy\v ([)dey^erai rrju airotyaaiv' 
toe, eKeivoi, <t>i\'nnrov ypaipavTOC, ei ^eyovrai rrj woXei 
avrov, etc, yaprr)v O fxeya ypdipavrec, aireareiXav 
(Plutarch, de Garrulitate, s. 21.). 

The books here have OY, but it is clear that 
it ought to be written in one letter. Ausonius, 
speaking of the same transaction, — 

Una fuit tan turn, qua respondere Lacones, 
Litera. 

Epist. 25, 36. 

There are also inscriptions of undoubted anti- 
quity, in which the O is placed for 01, as E110EI 
for e-rroiei ; but that this was not often done, 
seems probable, from the rarity of such inscrip- 
tions, and from Quinctilian's silence on the sub- 
ject. 



H DIPHTHONGS. 

What then was this third sound of O, which 
was afterwards represented by OY ? Upon this 
the ancient writers give us no precise informa- 
tion. That it was ever strictly diphthongal, that 
is double-sounded in the Erasmian sense, does 
not appear from any author, except as far as it 
might be inferred from the silence of Dionysius 
as to its pronunciation. At any rate, if it were 
so, it had ceased to be so before the time of 
Sextus, who classes it among the single sounds. 
Terentianus tells us that it had the same sound 
as the Latin vowel V, whatever that was : 

Grseca diphthongus sed OY Uteris nostris vacat, 
Sola vocalis quod V (OY) complet hunc satis sonum. 

I quote these two lines from an edition by Ca- 
rolas Lachmannus, Berolini, 1836. In Putch 
the lines are, 

Grseca diphthongus OY literis tamen nostris vacat ; 
Sola vocalis quod V complet hunc satis sonum ; 

p. 2391. 

which seem evidently corrupt, as they do not fall 
into trochaic metre. It may be observed that 
the sound of the U in Italy and of the OY in 
Greece, are at this day precisely the same. If 
the Greeks have corrupted the sound, so have 
the Italians, and in the same manner. 

Further, that the sound of O Y was independent, 
and not like any of the vowels, appears from the 
criticism of Nigidius : " Graecos non tantae in- 
scitise arcesso, qui OY ex O et Y scripserunt, 
quanta? qui EI ex E et I : illud enim inopia fece- 



DIPHTHONGS. Ca 

runt, hoc nulla re subacti." — Cited by Aulus 
Gellius, Noct. Attic, xix. 14. Nigidius boldly 
says, that it was unnecessary, and even clumsy 
of the Greeks, to take the EI to represent the 
long sound of iota, for which the 1 itself would 
have served as well : but to the adoption of the 
OY they were driven by the poverty of their 
alphabet, having no character to represent the 
sound for which it stood. 

AY. EY. 

These two diphthongs, which have added not 
a little of difficulty and bitterness to the Eras- 
mian dispute, may be treated of together. Homer 
seems to have used them in the separate form, 

K6K\er avaac, (II. A. 508.), evKTifxevov rrroXieOpov 

(II. B. 501.), which affords an inference, that in 
his time the two consecutive sounds were used, 
at least before a consonant : he also occasionally 
uses the contracted or diphthongal form ; for 
though I believe we shall not find in Homer the 
very word evKri/aevov as four syllables, we often 
find ev used as one ; so ave 8' era'ipovc, (II. A. 461.). 
When this pronunciation was changed, or whether 
it was ever changed in the Attic dialect, I have 
no means of showing • but certainly by Cicero's 
time, in that part of Italy called Magna Greecia, 
the Y of the diphthong AY was pronounced as a 
consonant, as it is over all Greece at present. 

Cicero, in treating of the facility with which a 
superstitious mind may draw prophecies from 



(U DIPHTHONGS. 

accidental sounds or expressions, gives this illus- 
tration : " Cum M. Crassus exercitum Brundusii 
imponeret, quidam in portu caricas Cauno advec- 
tas vendens ' Cauneas ' claraitabat. Dicamus, si 
placet, monitum ab eo Crassum, caveret, ne iret : 
non fuisse periturura, si omini paruisset." — Be 
Divinat. ii. 40. This passage, as we pronounce 
the word Cauneas, is utterly unintelligible. But 
supposing the Greek pronunciation to have been 
given to Kaweac, sounding the Y like our V, and 
laying the accent on the penultima, it gives cav- 
n' eas, or cave ne eas (beware how thou go) ; and 
that Cicero so pronounced it, is clear from his 
own expression, " caveret ne iret." It must be 
borne in mind that Greek was very commonly 
spoken in that part of Italy in Cicero's time, and 
indeed for many centuries afterward. I am not 
here assuming that we know exactly what was 
the sound of V in caveo ; all I contend is, that it 
is sounded like a consonant, and not as we com- 
monly pronounce Cauneas. No one will, I think, 
contend that in " cornu ferit ille, caveto," the first 
syllable is to be pronounced as we sound the first 
of Caucasus. 

The following inscription was found in the 
Island of Delos on the base of a statue : — 

O AFYTO AI90 EMI ANAPIA2 KAI TO 2$EAAS. 
Chishull, Antiq. As. p. 16.; Rose, Inscript. Grcec. p. 19. 

The T which no doubt stood at the head has been 
obliterated. It would be thus written in the later 

character : Tou avrov Xidov el fun o uvSplaQ Kal to 



DIPHTHONGS. 65 

<T</>eAac, " I am from the same block, both statue 
and base." How are we to account for the way 
in which the second word is spelt ? K. P. Knight 
thinks the sculptor was in doubt which letter he 
should use (Prolegom. ad Horn. p. 86). Perhaps 
the Y was written for the Ionians, who were ig- 
norant of the digamma, and the F for the iEolians. 
Liscovius mentions three coins of Vespasian in 
which OAAY. stands for Flavius : now it is not 
easy to conceive that the V in Flavius was not 
sounded like a consonant, but that it was so sound- 
ed appears further from our finding on other coins 
of about the same time, and particularly on one 
of the same year, Flavius rendered by <I>AABI02 
(Liscov. p. 51). I do not mean that either the Y 
or the B exactly corresponded with the V, but 
only that the former letter, to be so used, must 
in the time of Vespasian have sometimes sounded 
like a consonant : if AY had always sounded like 
our awe, it is improbable that any one could have 
employed it in the composition of the word Fla- 
vius. If, however, we find <fc\amoQ for Flavius, 
we find on the other hand KXavdioc for Claudius 
(Dionys. Halicarnass. Antiq. Rom. v. 66.) ; may 
not the latter be the old, and the former the 
more recent pronunciation ? or may not the 
Greeks have in both cases contented themselves 
with rendering letter for letter, as nearly as their 
alphabet would allow, without reference to the 
pronunciation which would have attached to 
them in a Hellenic word ? As this mode of pro- 



66 DIPHTHONGS. 

nouncing, however, was most probably of iEolic 
origin, it is not conclusive upon us, who are con- 
fined in our discussion to the Attic ; neither is it 
necessary to consider whether the Y, when thus 
used as a consonant, was exactly equivalent to 
the F, or digamma. The Delian inscription 
would lead us to suppose that it was ; though the 
received opinion of most scholars I believe is, 
that the iEolic digamma sounded like our W. 
Perhaps, however, it sounded differently at the 
end and in the beginning of a syllable. 

From whatever dialect derived, this pronun- 
ciation has now spread all over Greece, where 
the Y in AY and EY is sounded as a consonant, 
like an English F before a consonant, as fiaaiXevc 
(vasilefs), nvroc (aftos) ; and like our V before a 
vowel, or before A, M, N, or P, as evayyeXiov 
(evangelion) , vevpov (nevron). 

If the iEolians ever pronounced the Y in the 
diphthong OY like a consonant, this has not 
come down to the modern Greeks. 

Besides the six diphthongs which have been 
mentioned, we find some grammarians enume- 
rating six others, which they call improper diph- 
thongs, namely a, p, w, HY, YI, QY. With 
respect to the first three, enough has been said 
upon the AyXaiai of Pindar. 

I doubt whether QY can properly be called a 
diphthong, as I do not think that it ever forms 
one syllable : nor does HY, except in the aug- 
ment, as r)v§a, and in the Ionic, as vi\val. 

The YI has this peculiarity, that it never 



DIPHTHONGS. 67 

occurs before a consonant, so that the I may 
have been inserted to break the unpleasing sound 
which the Y would have had followed by another 
vowel, and probably sounded itself as a conso- 
nant like our Y, as vloc (huyos). The modern 
Greeks pronounce it simply eos. In a family 
monument, in the British Museum (No. 266.), 
to the memory of API2T0002H and others, the 
word YO occurs twice for vlov. 

Our method of pronouncing this diphthong, 
by making the first vowel sound like our W, is 
inharmonious in prose, and in poetry has the 
additional infelicity of spoiling the quantity, as 
in (fraiSi/moG vloQ, which we pronounce wios. 

On the whole, the charge made by the Eras- 
mians against the modern Greeks of having bar- 
barously corrupted the diphthongal sounds of 
their ancestors, seems in no case made out. 
That they pronounce the EI and the OY as 
Homer did seems pretty evident. That they 
pronounce the A I differently from Homer and 
Thucydides seems probable, but we have no 
right to stamp with the stigma of corruption a 
change recognized and settled, while the language 
was in its vigour and purity. Surely the modern 
Greeks have reason to be content, if they speak 
as well as Callimachus and Sextus, without going 
back to Thucydides and Homer. It is true that 
the Erasmians and many modern scholars after 
them, prefer the more sonorous manner in which 
Homer may be supposed to have sounded the 

f 2 



68 CONSONANTS. 

A I and very probably the 01, to that which pre- 
vailed later, and which still prevails in Greece ; 
but such a preference can be no authority for obs- 
tinately refusing to admit a change recognized 
and adopted by a whole nation. As well might 
we persist in continuing Chaucer's long termina- 
tions of nouns and verbs as more melodious than 
our monosyllabic forms, which they certainly 
are. 

The sounding of the second letter of the AY 
and EY as a consonant, though subsequent to 
Homer, may have taken place within the time of 
purity, and though probably iEolian in its origin 
may have been adopted in the Attic. And even 
with regard to the 01, though we may justly sus- 
pect the iotacism w T hich the modern Greeks give 
to it, we must necessarily adopt the arguments 
of the Erasmians on this diphthong with caution, 
after having found them inconclusive respecting 
the AI. 

CONSONANTS. 

4. As to the pronunciation of the consonants, 
Dionysius gives us the fullest information (xiv. 
96.). He divides them into semivowels and 
mutes. The semivowels, according to him, are 
eight in number, of which A, M, N, P, and 2 are 
simple, and Z, E, and ^ are double. He gives 
a particular description of the action of the organ 
in the pronunciation of each of these letters, 
which agrees in general with that which we adopt, 



CONSONANTS. 69 

and also with that of the modern Greeks. We 
differ from them in our pronunciation of the final 
2, to which we commonly give the sound of Z ; 
for instance, we pronounce 7twg poze, like the s 
in rose. The modern Greeks never give it this 
sound, except before the M : ^vpva they pro- 
nounce Zmeerna. And that this is an ancient 
mode of pronunciation appears from Lucian's 
Judgement of the Vowels, where the letter 2, in 
complaining of the many instances in which T 
has usurped his rights, says, incidentally, that 
his patience has been shown in putting up so 
quietly with the wrongs of Z, tw Irjra (jpttpaySov 

cnrocfTraGavTi, kcli iraaav aCpeXojuevw rr\v ^juvpvav (ed. 

HemsterhuiS. I. 94.). OvSev yap j3\airr6(ji€3a 

eavre $ia rov 2 ro gjjl'iXiov Kai rrjv ^LfAvpvav eavre &ta 

rov Z, ypatyiDfjLev (Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Gramm. 
c. 9.). 

The modern Greeks, when N is immediately 
followed by n, whether in the same or a differ- 
ent word, change in pronunciation the first into 
M and the second into B. I have not found any 
passage in any author of the time of purity to 
show that such a pronunciation is correct ; the 
inscriptions which prove it to be at least ancient 
I shall have occasion to mention hereafter, when 
I speak more particularly of the modern Greeks. 

The double consonants receive, according to 
Dionysius, a mixed sound, the Z of 2 and A, the 
S of K and 2, and the ^ of n and 2. The two 
latter we pronounce accordingly, and in so doing 



70 CONSONANTS. 

agree with the modern Greeks. We find §e%ai 
written AEX2AI, and ijjv X ac, written d>2YXA2 in 
the Potidaean inscription in the British Museum 
already alluded to [p. 60] . So X2ENYAA02 for 
EewWoc, and AAEX2IA2 for AAe£mc in the in- 
scription on the Nointelian marble mentioned 
[p. 60]. But this aspiration, if ever sounded, 
of which I find no further proof than these and 
some similar inscriptions, is now omitted in 
speech as universally as in writing. 

In the Z we also agree with the modern 
Greeks, who pronounce Iktyvpoc, like our zephyr. 
This pronunciation does not exactly correspond 
with that pointed out by Dionysius, who places 
the 2 before the A ; and that this is done ad- 
visedly, appears from a passage of Herodian : — 
" Why does the third conjugation never receive 
the Z in the future ? Answer : because every 
barytone future has the 2, either actually or vir- 
tually, immediately before the Q, as yoww, ypa\pw, 
Aefw : for the ^ is composed of n and 2, and 
the S of K and 2 ; but as the Z is composed, 
not of A and 2, but of 2 and A, the future could 
not have the Z, lest the A should virtually (La- 
/uei) be found immediately before the Q." UapeK- 

fioXal rov peyaXov phfxaTOC,, edited in the Qrjcravpoc, 
Kepac A/uaXOelaQ, Kal Krjiroi ASmviSoc, (Aldus, 

p. 193.). Plato says that the ancient Greeks 
often used the A singly instead of Z, as Sri/ida 
instead of Inula, <Wyov for £>yoi> (Cratyl. 31.). 
Perhaps this may account for Homer's 



CONSONANTS. 71 

vXi'ieiraa ZcikvpOos. — Od. I. 24. 

and 

(jlotv ZeXelrjs. — 77. A. 103. 

The mutes which are nine in number, are di- 
vided by Dionysius into three classes (avlvy'iai). 
The first class consists of n, B, and $, all three 
of which are pronounced with the same disposi- 
tion of the organs, that is, from the edge of the 
lips ; the mouth compressed {meadevroc) until 
the breath driven upwards forces them asunder. 
The only difference between the three, is in the 

amount of aspiration. Mia fiev avrrj avlvyia rpiuiu 
y pa /u fiiar (ov aCpiovw, OfJLOiw ayjijian \eyofxevu)v, ipi\o- 
rr)Ti Se Kal ^aavTrjTi Sia(j)ep6vTU)V. — XIV. 102. 

This classification seems to explain the opinion 
to which Dionysius refers of some grammarians, 
who held the number of letters to be only 
thirteen : these grammarians probably looked 
upon the IT, B, and <£, as virtually the same 
letter, as being uttered with the same disposition 
of the organs, and varying in aspiration alone, 
so that they would make the mutes three instead 
of nine. We pronounce the IT, as do the mo- 
dern Greeks, exactly in the manner pointed out 
by Dionysius. The <I> we also pronounce cor- 
rectly, that is, with an aspiration ; but the Greeks 
make the aspiration softer and fuller, and more 
like a sigh, though it is not easy to express the 
difference in writing. It might be supposed, 
from a general analogy between the languages, 
that the Roman F corresponded in sound with 
the Greek $ ; but the contrary appears from 



72 CONSONANTS. 

Quinctilian : " Grasci adspirare solent $, ut pro 
Fundanio Cicero testem, qui primam ejus literam 
dicere non posset, irridet." — I. 4, 14. 

The ancient pronunciation of the B had a large 
share in the controversy between the Erasmians 
and the Reuchlinians. We side with the former 
in pronouncing it like our B, while the Reuch- 
linians contend that the modern Greeks are right 
in pronouncing it like our V, as /3ao-tXeuc, vasilefs. 
Both manners of pronouncing are, perhaps, con- 
sistent with that pointed out by Dionysius ; 
though the term irieaQevToc applied by him to the 
mouth, seems to suit the B better than the V*. 
That the B often has been used to represent the 
Latin B cannot be denied. The Erasmians rely 
much on a facetious letter of Cicero to Partus 
(Ep. Fam. ix. 22.), from which it appears that 
the Greek word fllvei sounded like the Latin bird ; 
but this can scarcely be taken as a proof that the 
Greek B sounded like ours. Cicero's object was 
to give his friend a hearty laugh, and the two 
words were near enough to each other for that 
purpose. How both would have laughed, if they 
had foreseen the grave criticism to which their 
fun was to be subjected ! We find the Latin B 
frequently represented by the Greek Beta, as 
Brutus by Bpovroc (Dionys. Antiq. Rom I. 74.). 
But this use of the Beta for the Latin B is by no 
means conclusive ; if the modern Greeks be 
right, which must at least be conceded to be pos- 
sible, then there is no Greek letter of the precise 



CONSONANTS. 73 

sound of the Latin B, which we consider equi- 
valent to our English B, and the Beta may have 
been used to represent it as holding the same 
place in the alphabet, and as coming nearer to it 
than any other single letter. Then again it may 
be asked, how do we know what was the precise 
sound of the Latin B ? The ancient authorities 
leave it as much open to us to contend that the 
B in Brutus sounded like our V, as that the B 
in Bpovroc sounded like our B. If it be said that 
the modern Italians sound the B as we do, I ask 
why are the modern Italians better authority than 
the modern Greeks ? 

The Reuchlinians and modern Greeks, on the 
other hand, produce numerous instances in which 
the Roman V was represented by the Beta. Livia 
is rendered A/j3m by Plutarch, Uepl tov el i» 
toTc Ae\(j)oic, s. 3. So Privernum by Hplfiepvov. 
(Strabo, lib. v. p. 237.) And again, speaking of 
the recolonization of the town of Como, which 
was thenceforward called Novum Comum, he 

says, NeofCto/urai yap eicXriOriaav airavrec' tovto 
c>e iie$epfn)vev®ev Noj3ov/x/caYtoUjU Xeyerai (lib. V. p. 

326). Here it is obvious that he is not helleni- 
zing the word, for that he has already sufficiently 
done by the expression Neoicw/urai, but is ren- 
dering the Latin " Novum Comum" into Greek 
either exactly, or as nearly so as the Greek al- 
phabet will allow. Not that these authorities 
prove the correctness of the modern Greek pro- 
nunciation ; the Roman V was more probably 



74 CONSONANTS. 

pronounced like our W, and is not unirequently 
rendered also by the Greek OY. Omol for Veii, 
(Dionys. Rom. Antiq. ii. 54.) ObeXirpai for Ve- 
litrse, and OvoXgkw for Volscorum (Strabo, lib. 
v. p. 237), and OuaXep/ac for Valeria, Ovevacppiov 
for Venafrum, OvovXrovpvoc for Vulturnus (lb. 
p. 238.). Dionysius, in speaking of Lavinium, 
has the word Aaovhiov (Rom. Antiq. iii. 34), and 
Aa(3iviaTuv (Ibid, v. 61) : and yet it is difficult 
to believe that under any circumstances the OY 
and the B in any word of purely Grecian origin 
could have had the same sound. The more pro- 
bable conjecture is, that the V in Lavinium had 
no Greek sound exactly corresponding with it. 

The modern Greeks have no letter correspond- 
ing with our B ; except that they give that sound 
to the II when it comes after the M, as e/unrriQ, 
embes. Accordingly they use Mn to express the 
B of the Frank nations : and the Frenchman is 
invited to his favourite amusement by the un- 
classical combination MiriXiapSo. 

The second class of mutes are T, A, and 9. 
These are thus pronounced, according to Diony- 
sius : — The tongue is brought into contact with 
the roof of the mouth close to the upper teeth, 
and is then gently stirred by the breath, which it 
allows to escape in a direction from the teeth. 
Our pronunciation of the T and 6, which is the 
same as that of the modern Greeks, seems to 
agree with that of Dionysius. The modern Greeks 
pronounce the T when coming after N, like our 



CONSONANTS. 75 

D, as eWoc, endos. A similar pronunciation 
perhaps prevailed at some period in the Latin. 
''Quid T literal cum D qusedam cognatio ? 
Quare minus mirum, si in vetustis operibus urbis 
nostra?, et celebribus templis legantur Alex- 
anter et Cassantra?" (Quinct. i. 4, 16.) The 
modern Greeks pronounce the A like our TH 
in that ; as Sic, this ; neither this pronuncia- 
tion, nor that which we adopt of the English 
D, can be said to be contrary to the rule of 
Dionysius ; for of each it may be said, that 
it has less aspiration than 9, and yet more 
than T. That the modern Greek is the correct 
pronunciation seems probable, from the Doric 
pronunciation of Z being represented by AA, as 

yv/uvaSSojuai for yvfxvatofxai (Aristoph. Lysist. 82.). 

Now the A A, as we pronounce them, create a 
sound entirely different from Z, but Z pronounced 
in a thick lisping manner, will be exactly repre- 
sented by A A, according to the modern Greek 
pronunciation. It is a great facility to an En- 
glishman, in learning this pronunciation, that his 
organs are used to the sound both of 9 and of A, 
as when we say ' ' that thistle.' ' To a Frenchman 
neither is easy, but to learn both, and put each 
into its right place, extremely difficult. 

The last class of mutes are K, T and X : the 
K we pronounce like the modern Greeks, and I 
doubt not correctly, though the particular di- 
rections of Dionysius are not quite so clear as in 
the two former classes. The r is pronounced by 



70 CONSONANTS. 

the modern Greeks in the same manner as our 
G, but somewhat more gutturally. When how- 
ever it is followed by E or I, they soften it, and 
make it a good deal like our Y, as yn, ye. 
r before K, r, or X, sounds like N, as eyyuc, 
engus ; ayyeXoc, anghelos. The modern Greeks 
strictly follow Dionysius in pronouncing the 
X with an aspiration. Why we entirely neg- 
lect this distinction, while we preserve it in the 
6 and <£, seems unaccountable. Nothing can 
be more agreeable than the soft and full aspira- 
tion which a Greek gives to this letter ; nor will 
an ear, which has once heard x^P lQ an d fax** 
pronounced as they ought to be, ever endure 
without pain /capic and^u/c??, though from the lips 
of a Professor. 

In the classification of the mutes in the Eton 
Greek Grammar, the II B $ are properly called 
" cognate" letters : it would have been better to 
explain the manner in which they are related, 
namely by the similarity of the disposition of the 
organs in pronouncing them. Kiihner calls FT, 
B, <£, lippenlaute (lip-sounds), K, T, X, kehllaute 
(throat-sounds), T, A, 0, zungenlaute (tongue- 
sounds), Gr. Gram. p. 19. How much more pre- 
cise would our notions have been, had we com- 
pounded our Saxon words in the same manner, 
instead of talking of labials and gutturals ! 

Though the modern Greeks preserve the aspi- 
rate in the <J>, X, 6, they neglect it in words 
beginning with a vowel, or with the consonant P. 



CONSONANTS. 77 

That in this respect they deviate from the pro- 
nunciation of the well-educated portion of their 
ancestors cannot be doubted. The initial aspi- 
rate was originally marked by the letter H, after- 
wards by the half of that letter F , and lastly by the 
inverted comma '. For what purpose could these 
marks have been introduced into their inscrip- 
tions and manuscripts unless they were sounded ? 
Or why should the final consonant be always 
turned into an aspirate before these words, as 
ttoB' wpa for nore fopa, unless the following vowel 
were aspirated ? It may indeed be inferred from 
the manner in which the modern Greeks pro- 
nounce the <I> and the X, that their pronuncia- 
tion of the initial aspirate was softer than ours ; 
but still it must have been distinguishable : and 
the omission of it would perhaps have offended 
their ears, as much as it does ours in our own 
language. 



;s 



CHAPTER HI. 

1. ACCENTS. 2. DR. FOSTER'S WORK. — 3. DEFINITION OF AC- 
CENT. 4. ACCENTUAL MARKS. 5. PASSAGE SELECTED AS A 

GUIDE FOR THE VOICE IN READING. 6. ACCENTS OF MONO- 
SYLLABLES. 7. OXYTONES. 8. DISYLLABLES. 9. TRISYL- 
LABLES. 

ACCENTS. 

1. I propose in the next place to treat of the 
accents of the Greek language, 

DR. FOSTER'S WORK. 

2. It may perhaps seem superfluous to add 
anything on this subject, after the admirable 
essay of Dr. Foster, entitled " An Essay on the 
different nature of Accent and Quantity, with their 
Use and Application in the English, Latin and 
Greek languages. By John Foster, M.A., late 
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge." I quote 
from the third edition, octavo, London, 1820. 
The scholar who has studied that essay with 
attention, will not find much new information in 
the following pages ; I have, in pursuance of the 
plan which I marked out for myself at the outset 
of the inquiry, selected from the authors whom 
he cites, those who were born before the third 



DEFINITION OF ACCENT. 79 

century, and I believe that this exclusion of the 
later writers will clear the subject from many of 
its difficulties to those scholars who have not 
time to pursue a more elaborate inquiry. And 
even to those who wish to continue the study of 
the pronunciation of the Greek language down 
to the present time, it may not be amiss to divide 
the inquiry into two periods, the former of un- 
doubted purity, and the latter of extensive cor- 
ruption in literature and taste, and, as some 
think, in pronunciation also. 

I so entirely agree with Dr. Foster's theory of 
Greek accents, and have been so struck with the 
happy manner in which he has illustrated it, 
that I have often found myself constrained to 
use his words instead of adopting less apt ex- 
pressions of my own. The reader at least will 
have no reason to complain ; and I, after this 
general acknowledgment of my obligations to 
Dr. Foster, shall not think it necessary to quote 
him on every occasion in which I repeat his 
opinions. That I have not followed him blindly 
will appear from my not agreeing with him on 
the subject of English accents. 

DEFINITION OF ACCENT. 

3. Much of the perplexity which has attended 
this inquiry, has arisen from the writers on it 
either not defining the term " accent," or not 
adhering to their definition. They often apply 
the term indiscriminately to the marks which we 



66 ACCENTUAL MARKS. 

find over the words in Greek manuscripts, and 
to the exertion of the voice in heightening syl- 
lables. As an instance of the confusion which 
this want of precision may occasion, some writers 
have spoken of accent as a comparatively modern 
invention : now it is true that the use of accen- 
tual marks is a comparatively modern invention ; 
but to say that the use of accents is a modern 
invention, is to say that Plato and Demosthenes 
spoke in one unvarying note, and that it was 
reserved for a grammarian of Alexandria to teach 
the Greeks to improve the modulation of their 
tongue by heightening some syllables and de- 
pressing others. The reader is therefore apprised 
that wherever the term " accent" shall occur in 
the following pages, it is not intended to express 
a written mark, but an operation of the human 
voice ; and when the term occurs unaccom- 
panied by an adjective, it is meant to express 
the exertion of the voice in raising a syllable. 
Nor will the subject be found either abstruse in 
its nature, or doubtful in its evidence, to one 
who shall begin by settling in his own mind what 
he means by the term " accent," and who can 
preserve that meaning unconfused throughout 
the inquiry. 



ACCENTUAL MARKS. 81 

ACCENTUAL MARKS. 

4. We find in the greater part of the Greek 
manuscripts, and in almost all Greek books, the 
following signs, ('), O, and f) ; each word, with 
a few exceptions, having one of the signs over it. 
These signs are usually called " accents," but, to 
avoid the confusion which has been above advert- 
ed to, it will be better to term them " accentual 
marks." That these marks were originally in- 
tended as a guide to the voice in laying the accent, 
that is, heightening the syllables, may be shown 
by such proofs as can leave little doubt in the 
mind. They could not have been, like the He- 
brew points, an essential part of the syllables 
themselves, because we have, without them, both 
vowels and consonants sufficient to form each 
syllable. It seems clear, that whenever invented, 
they did not come into general use till long after 
the Christian era. Now the date of their pre- 
valence serves to throw light upon their object. 
By that time Grecian literature had extended 
itself over many countries where Greek was not 
the vernacular language. To a Latin or an Ara- 
bian student, it would be highly useful to have 
some guide in laying the accent properly ; though 
to the Greek, who had learned the accents in his 
infancy, any such guide would be superfluous. 
That they were intended as musical marks, as 
some have asserted, might have had some degree 
of probability if we found them exclusively over 



82 ACCENTUAL MARKS. 

poetical works ; but that any one would have 
wasted his time in affixing musical marks to 
histories, grammars and lexicons, seems in the 
highest degree improbable ; to say nothing of the 
same mark always recurring over the same word 
with an uniformity utterly inconsistent with the 
variety of cadence which we should expect to 
find in music. The conjecture, that they were 
intended to point out the quantity, does not seem 
at all more likely : because we see two of the 
three marks placed indifferently over long and 
short syllables ; and besides, there are other 
marks, well known to grammarians, which do 
point out the quantity. The argument which the 
modern Greek would consider as the strongest 
of all, namely the tradition through many cen- 
turies of the object of the marks, and an actual 
pronunciation in accordance with them, is not 
here insisted on ; because to us in England that 
tradition and that agreement have not come 
down. But laying this out of the question, any 
unprejudiced reader will allow, that till some 
other theory shall be supported by probable evi- 
dence, we are warranted in assuming that these 
marks were intended to serve as guides in laying 
the accent. Nor will there perhaps be much 
difficulty in inducing English readers to assent 
to this proposition ; most of us being persuaded 
that the marks were originally invented for the 
purpose of pointing out where the accent ought 
to be laid ; but refusing to regulate our pronun- 



ACCENTUAL MARKS. 83 

ciation by them, from a conviction that they have 
been misplaced by ignorance, inattention, or cor- 
ruption : just as a man would disregard a clock, 
not from doubting whether the clock had been 
invented to mark time, but from a persuasion 
that it no longer marked the time rightly. As- 
suming then that these accentual marks were 
intended to point out the syllables on which the 
accent ought to be laid, the question is, whether 
they are rightly placed, and whether our pro- 
nunciation, in order to be correct, ought to be 
regulated by them. But before proceeding to 
this inquiry, I will shortly consider the origin of 
the invention of marks, their different kinds, 
and what effect each mark, supposing it placed 
rightly, ought to have upon our pronunciation 
of the syllable over which it stands. 

Montfaucon gives it as his opinion, that the 
accentual marks were invented by Aristophanes 
of Byzantium, who was librarian of the Alexan- 
drian library about two centuries before Christ. 
(P alee o graph, lib. i. c. 4.) Others have contended, 
and with great probability, that the invention 
must have been earlier. Perhaps Aristophanes 
first brought the invention of the marks into 
general notice. The invention, though useful, 
had nothing in it striking or captivating. To 
the native Greek, who had learned the proper 
accent in his infancy, any means of pointing out 
where it should be laid would be quite super- 
fluous ; and scarcely less so to a foreigner, who 

g 2 



84 ACCENTUAL MARKS. 

had learned the language by long and constant 
communication with Greek teachers. We may 
therefore readily suppose that it would be some 
time before the invention became widely diffused, 
and that it would be sooner applied to treatises 
on pronunciation or grammar than to works of 
general literature. Now the facts, as far as we 
can ascertain them, exactly agree with these 
probabilities : few manuscripts with accentual 
marks bear a higher date than the seventh cen- 
tury, and the earliest works which bear them are 
generally works of grammarians. 

" Verum hsec omnia ante septimum saeculum 
a librariis neglecta prorsus videntur: nam co- 
dices vetustissimi quinti sextive sseculi iis prorsus 
carent : quse ante septimum saeculum, in solis 
grammaticorum libris observata fuisse videntur." 
{Montfaucon, Palceograph. lib. i. c. 4.) So that the 
absence of the marks from ancient coins and 
marbles and from the earliest manuscripts, which 
has been urged by some writers as a reason for 
distrusting the marks, is a strong proof of their 
truth, as it shows that this invention, like all 
others, began to be most used when it was most 
wanted. But though the marks came not into 
general use till the seventh century, there seems 
little reason to doubt that they were invented at 
a much earlier period. The marks at the com- 
mencement of the Alexandrian manuscript in 
the British Museum, if placed there by the same 
hand which wrote the manuscript, are of the 



ACCENTUAL MARKS. 85 

fourth century. They certainly seem to be in 
the same ink as the manuscript, and it looks as 
if the writer had begun the work with marks, 
but soon abandoned them as an unnecessary 
labour. 

Economus, who has written a treatise on Greek 
pronunciation in modern Greek, published at 
Petersburgh in 1830, informs us that there is a 
manuscript of Dioscorides in the imperial library 
at Vienna, with marks, which could not have been 
later than the middle of the fifth century, as it is 
dedicated to Augusta Julia, daughter of Olybrius, 
who was Emperor of the West A.D. 472. It 
may not be uninteresting to give the passage as 
a specimen of the modern Greek : — 

Tovovc, e^et Trapofioiujc tcai to Kara rriv Avro- 
KparopiKrjv f3i(3\io9rjKrjv rrjc JSievvrjG ^taarj/uLorarov av- 
riypa(f)ov rov Aiootcojoi&ou, yeypafULjuevov irepi ra fxeaa 
rrjc 7re/unrTrjc iKarovraerYipiSoc, wc avjH7repaiverai 
aa(j)a\wG utto rriv ev avrw Trpoa($)iovy)(Jiv irpoc, rrjv 
Avyovarav lovXiav Ovyarepa fxr\rpoc, fxev TIXaKiSiac, 
eyyovrjc Qeocoaiov rov /uiKpov, irarpoc, ce OXvppiov 
fiaaiXevaavroc ev Avaei tw 472 fi. X. Kal ric. o\Zev 
av to avriypa(pov Sev tjto 7roXu ira\aiorepov Kryj/ua 
rov 7rpo<j(j)(jJvri<7avTOC ', 

The accentual marks are commonly described 
by grammarians as three in number, and as pro- 
ducing the following effects : — the acute, marked 
('), which raises the syllable over which it 
is placed; the grave ('), which depresses the 
syllable ; and the circumflex ("), which sustains 



86 ACCENTUAL MARKS. 

and lengthens it. This definition of the effect of 
the acute mark is sufficiently accurate for our 
purpose ; let any one pronounce the word re- 
venue and then revenue, he will find that the 
syllable to which he assigns the accent is raised, 
that is, receives a higher note. " Nam vox, ut 
nervi, quo remissior, hoc et gravior et plenior : 
quo tensior, hoc tenuis et acuta magis est. Sic 
ima vim non habet, summa rumpi periclitatur." 
(Quinctil. xi. 3, 42.) It will be necessary to say 
more on the definition of accent, and particularly 
the acute accent, in the consideration of the na- 
ture of quantity. 

The above definition of the grave accent ( v ) 
has caused no little perplexity ; because it would 
lead us to suppose that every syllable over which 
we find the mark (') must be raised, and every 
syllable over which we find the mark O must be 
depressed : whereas the truth is, that every syl- 
lable must be raised over which either of these 
marks is found ; and the only syllables to be 
depressed are those over which there is no mark 
at all. I have not heard of any manuscript now 
extant in which every syllable is marked. I re- 
gret that some of these manuscripts, if such there 
have been, have not come down to us, because I 
feel persuaded that in them we should find the 
final acute marked with the ('), as Oeoc rinloc ear}. 
Probably few of such manuscripts have ever 
existed. It would soon occur to copyists that it 
is sufficient to mark the syllables which are to 



ACCENTUAL MARKS. 87 

be raised, and that to mark those which are to be 
depressed is an unnecessary labour. The mark 
('), which would thus become useless when the 
grave accent ceased to be marked, appears to 
have been afterwards used to represent a final 
acute, and is never applied to a syllable which 
is in pronunciation to be depressed ; so that I 
am warranted by the whole body of manuscripts 
and by all the books which have followed them 
in laying down the proposition, that the grave 
accent has now no mark. Nor can I claim any 
originality for this theory. Simon tells us that 
many German critics thought that the grave ac- 
cent ought to be entirely discarded (eliminatum), 
and that the mark f) on final syllables is rather 
to be considered as the inverse acute, which 
might with more propriety be called the final 
acute ; and he adds, that he thinks the proposi- 
tion reasonable. (Simon, Introductio Grammatico- 
Critica in Ling. Gr&c. ii. s. 24.) 

The mark of the grave being thus discarded 
altogether, the rule is, that the mark of the acute 
is a stroke from right to left ('), except on the 
last syllable of a word, when it is made from left 
to right ('). The reason of the distinction is 
obvious, that if the last syllable were marked (') 
it would be mistaken for the effect of an enclitic. 
More will be said of enclitics hereafter. Here it 
is enough to point out, that when we say $6c poi, 
we virtually pronounce these two words as one ; 
So(7/ioi, as giveme in English and ddtemi in Ita- 



88 ACCENTUAL MARKS. 

lian. Whenever, therefore, the last syllable of 
a word is marked ( ' ) we perceive that there is 
to be no pause, but that we must continue the 
breath and pronounce the succeeding word as if 
it formed part of the preceding. When, how- 
ever, a syllable to be raised stands at the end of 
a sentence, it cannot be mistaken for an enclitic, 
and accordingly is marked in the usual manner 
(') ; so that the acute accent is marked either 
(') or ('), according to the rules above-men- 
tioned, and the grave is never marked at all, 
being in truth only the absence of accent, and 
being understood to apply to every syllable over 
which there is no mark. A great part of the 
difficulty of understanding this otherwise simple 
subject is caused by a confusion between the 
grave accent, that is, depression of a syllable in 
speaking, and the mark ('), which is never now 
used but to express an acute accent. It is for 
want of attending to this simple variation in the 
manner of making the mark, that scholars have 
supposed that a word is to be pronounced in a 
different manner when at the end and when in 
the middle of a sentence. Dr. Gaily assumes 
this, and urges it as a ground for rejecting the 
marks altogether. 

" An oxytone becometh a barytone in a con- 
tinued discourse, except in the case of enclitics ; 
and the acute accent, when so changed, doth not 
seem to be either a proper acute or a proper 
grave." (A Dissertation against Pronouncing the 



ACCENTUAL MARKS. HI) 

Greek Language according to Accents, p. 49.) 
This author has not affixed his name to the book ; 
Dr. Foster notices it as a treatise of Dr. G., but 
I believe it is generally understood to have been 
written by the Reverend Dr. Gaily, Prebendary 
of Gloucester and Norwich, a scholar of consi- 
derable attainments. Dr. Gaily further says : 
" The making oxy tones become barytones in 
such a manner that they are not to be pro- 
nounced either as oxy tones or barytones, is really 
monstrous. But besides this, it is a great ab- 
surdity, and contrary to the nature of all lan- 
guages, that the same word, when pronounced 
separately, should be subject to a different modu- 
lation from what it must have when it makes 
part of a continued discourse." (p. 51.) The 
answer is, that the Greek language is chargeable 
with no such absurdity, the accent of an oxytone 
word when pronounced separately and when 
part of a continued discourse being precisely the 
same, though expressed in the latter case, to 
avoid confusion with an enclitic, in a different 
manner. The Eton Greek Grammar is not free 
from this confusion of the mark (') with the 
depression of a syllable in speaking: it states, 
in one sentence, that the grave is only marked 
on the last syllable, but is understood in every 
syllable where there is no accent : ' ' Gravis tan- 
tum in ultima signatur, sed in omni syllaba intel- 
ligitur, in qua nullus est accentus." This would 
lead one to suppose, that the grave which is 



90 ACCENTUAL MARKS. 

marked on the last syllable, and the grave which 
is understood in other syllables are the same ; 
and that, being the same, they must produce the 
same effect. But the mark (') over the last syl- 
lable is the sign of the acute accent, and raises 
that syllable : whereas the grave accent, which 
is understood to apply to a syllable over which 
there is no mark, depresses that syllable. The 
correct way of stating the rule would be thus : 
" Gravis nunquam signatur, sed in omni syllaba, 
cui deest signum, intelligitur." It has been sup- 
posed by some, that syllables so marked, though 
depressed in the middle of a sentence, were raised 
at the end of a sentence, to prevent the sound 
being lost by the sinking of the voice. But if 
such were the rule, why confine it to these par- 
ticular words ? why not apply it to every final 
syllable ? That the mark ( ' ) must stand for an 
acute may be further show r n from the testimony 
of Cicero and Dionysius, which will be cited 
hereafter, that every word has an acute accent. 
Where then is the acute in the word Qeoc, in the 
middle of a sentence ? Not on the first syllable, 
because that, not being marked, must be under- 
stood to be grave ; not on the second, if we 
consider the (') to stand for a grave; so that 
the w r ord would be without an acute, which is 
impossible. 

The effect of the circumflex is not so easily 
defined. To say that it sustains or makes long 
the syllable affected by it, is to give a very im- 



ACCENTUAL MARKS. 91 

perfect account of it ; because, though all cir- 
cumflexed syllables are long, all long syllables 
are not circumflexed. Quinctilian says expressly, 
that a circumflexed syllable and an acute are the 
same : " Preeterea nunquam in eadem flexa et 
acuta, quoniam eadem flexa et acuta." (i. 5, 31.) 
Apollonius, with greater precision, says that they 
are the same in power though not in nature : 

TlporjvOeTKTTai yap rd eyicXiTiKa p.6pia em reXouc 
ey^eiv ttji> ot,eiav, 77 (pvaei, r) oiwa/xei Aeya> oe, cvva/uei, 
Sid rd irepiGTrioixeva. (Syntax, ii. 18. p. 138.) 

There is another passage of the same author, 
which at first sight strikes us as being in direct 
contradiction to this. In speaking of the accen- 
tuation of interrogative adverbs he says : Td 

Trva/uara r) (pvaei deXei papvveaOai, r) cvvafxei' ra yovv 
virep /Liiav <7vXXaj3?]i;, ey^ovra tottov rrjc, fiapelac,, iravra 
fiapvverai* rd &e [jiovoavWafia, ov Svva/JLeva €Ktoq rrjc 
o^elac yevevOai, cWcifiei epapvvOr} TrepiGTraadevra. 

(De Adverb., Bekker, Anecdot. Grac. p. 584.) 

The solution of the apparent inconsistency 
must be sought in the peculiar nature of the 
circumflex accent, which was compounded of an 

acute and a grave : Ai jue»> Kara fxiav av\\a(3r)v 
avvetyQapfxevov eyovai no o£e? to fiapv, clq §r) /ecu 7re- 
piairb)p,evac, KaXovpev. {Dionys. xi. 76.) 

It appears that the voice was first raised to the 
pitch of an acute, and then, before passing on to 
the next syllable, was dropped to a grave. This 
is sometimes explained by saying, that the sound 
was repeated twice, first with an acute and then 



92 INSTANCE SELECTED AS A GUIDE 

with a grave, a^iia for instance was pronounced 
croona. This explanation is probably very near 
the mark, but still we must remember that these 
two sounds were blended into one syllable : a^na, 
Ghj/uaroQ, and pooc were doubtless all differently 
pronounced. At any rate, however, it is clear 
that the syllables having the circumflex mark 
were raised, and we may therefore apply the 
term accent to them, as well as to those having 
the mark of the acute. 

INSTANCE SELECTED AS A GUIDE FOR THE VOICE IN 
READING. 

5. Having thus pointed out the distinction be- 
tween accents and accentual marks, and having 
endeavoured to give an accurate definition of 
each, I now proceed to the question whether our 
pronunciation ought to be guided by the marks ; 
that is, whether we ought, in speaking, to raise 
those syllables, and those only, over which we ob- 
serve a mark. It may be asked, to what manu- 
script or to what book I would refer as the stand- 
ard of the accuracy of the marks ? and in answer 
to that question, the reader's attention may be 
called to the striking agreement in all the manu- 
scripts and books in their general manner of 
placing the marks. It would indeed be absurd to 
contend that particular exceptions do not occur ; 
copyists must have varied in carefulness as well 
as in knowledge ; blunders must have been made 
in the accentual marks as well as in the order 



FOR THE VOICE IN READING. 93 

and orthography of the words ; but the general 
manner of placing the marks shows such an 
agreement between the different writers as could 
not possibly have resulted from accident. The 
deviations from this general manner have not 
been sufficiently numerous to throw any doubt 
or uncertainty over the system ; but every critic 
who has studied it feels himself justified in say- 
ing that such and such words in a manuscript 
are wrongly marked, with as much confidence as 
he would say, that such and such words are 
wrongly spelt ; appealing for the correctness of 
his criticism to an overwhelming majority of 
other manuscripts. And accordingly those who 
rely on the accuracy of the marks have usually 
contented themselves with contending in general, 
that our pronunciation ought to be guided by 
them wherever we find them. It has however 
occurred to me, that it may be better to refer to 
a particular passage of a given manuscript or 
book ; first, for the sake of greater precision as 
to the very words to which our rules are to be 
applied ; and secondly, because, by counting the 
number of marks in a passage of limited extent, 
we are enabled to show exactly the proportions 
in which the rules which we assume are observed 
or violated, and to reduce both rules and excep- 
tions to arithmetical statement. I have selected 
for this purpose three of Dr. Charles Burney's 
manuscripts of the New Testament, in the British 
Museum. The passage fixed on was the first 



94 INSTANCE SELECTED AS A GUIDE 

chapter of St. Luke's Gospel to the end of the 
twentieth verse. The manuscripts selected are 
the following : No. 20 of the Burneian collection 
in the British Museum, written by Theophilus in 
1285; No. 21 of the same collection, written in 
the year 1292 by Theodorus ; No. 18 of the same, 
written in 1366 by Joasaph. I have chosen these 
manuscripts on account of their bearing the ex- 
act dates at which they were written. The marks 
in them have the appearance of being written at 
the same time with the words, and I think it may 
be fairly assumed that they were so. With re- 
spect to some of the more ancient manuscripts, 
this point might not perhaps be so easily con- 
ceded. When we find only one manuscript 
marked out of many, we may doubt whether it 
may not owe its marks to the accident of its 
having fallen into the hands of some one, who 
marked it in a later age : but as it is universally 
agreed that the use of the marks had become 
very general before the thirteenth century, there 
is little probability that a copier would allow a 
manuscript unmarked to go out of his hands ; 
and I should think, in general, a writer who had 
made up his mind that the manuscript should 
be marked, would mark the words as fast as 
he wrote them. 

The following is a copy of the first twenty 
verses of the first chapter of Saint Luke's Gospel, 
as they stand in the manuscript of Theophilus ; 
I have divided the text into verses for the con- 



FOR THE VOICE IN READING. 95 

venience of reference, though it is not so divided 
in the original. I have also enclosed in brackets, 
thus [kciOug] , many words which are illegible in 
No. 21. 

Ver. 1. E7retc)r/7r 6|0 7roXXot krreyeipriaav avara.l-,aaQai dtriyqatv 
wept ri3v iveirXripotyopriixevwv kv rjfxlv Trpayfj.arwv' V. 2. [kclBios] 
7rapedoaav rjfx7v ot a7r' [«jox^O avroVrai kcu vwqperat yevojuevot 
rov \6yov, v. 3. edo^e kcl/joI 7rapr)KoXovdr)Kort avojdev itdaiv 
a/cpi/3ws, Kade£,fjs aot ypctxpat Kpdrtare OeoQiXe' V. 4. 'iva 
kirtyvios irepl Ji> KaTrj^Qif]s X6yu>v, rrjv ctatyaXetav' v. 5. 
kyevero kv reus r\fiepats -qpioDov rov (3aatXeu)s rrjs lovdaias, 
lepevs rts ovofiart ^a^aptas' ,k£ k(f)r)[Aepias a/3ta' kcu 17 yvv>) 
avrov, €K tojv Ovyarepiov aapwv' Kal to ovofia avTrjs, EXtaafier* 
V. 6. r\aav le dlicatoi aptyoTepot kvwrrtov tov 6v' ivopevo^xevot kv 
rrdaats rats kvroXals Kal diKatw/jiaat tov kv a^te/i7rroi' V. 7. 
Kol ovk rjv avTois tckvov' KaOoTi 7] EXttra/3er tjv areipa, Kal ajj.- 
tporepot, irpofte^r]KUTes kv rats fjfjiepats avrwv r\aav' v. 8. 
\_kyevero~] $e kv rw leparevetv avrov' kv [rr[\ rd^et rrjs e^j^ue- 
pias avrov, [evavrt [dv' v. 9. Kara to edos rrjs] lepareias, 
eXaye tov [dvfitaaat, elaeXdiov els tov vabv tov kv' v. 10. kcu. 
■kcLv to irXrjdos rjv tov Xaov] rtpoaevyo^xevov e£w [rrj Spa] tov 
dvfxiafiaTOS' V. 11. &(pdr] \J)e avrui] (iyyeXos kv, karoos e^ 
Se^tibv tov dvataarrjpiov tov Qvfitd flaws' V. 12. Kal krapa^dr] 
'^a^apias tStbv' Kal (pofios krreTteaev e7r' avrov' V. 13. et7re Be 
npos avrov 6 ayyeXos* «// Qofiov £ayapta' diort elarjKOvadrj f] 
c^erjats gov' kcu rj yvri] gov kXiactfier yevvyaet vlov aot* Kal 
KaXeaets to oVoua avrov, tw* V. 14. teat carat x ana a0L Kai 
ctyaXXtaats' Kal 7roXXot knl rr\ yevvrjaet avrov \apfjaovrai* 
v. 15. carat yap fieyas kviorrtov tov kv' /cat olvov Kal aiKepa ov 
ur/ Trir)' Kal 7rva' ctyiov TrXrjaOfjaerat en ck KOtXias fxp^s avrov' 
v. 16. feat toXXovs tcjv vluiv h)X k7narpe\l/et t7rt kv tov 6 k v avruiv' 
V. 17. Kal avros TrpoeXevaerat kvLrztov avrov kv 7rv't Kal Svvcifiet 
rjXlov, kiriaTpexjjat Kapdtds 7rpu)v, kirl reKva' Kal [a7ret0ets,] kv 
typoviiaet StKaiiov' [krotfxaaat koj' Xaov] KaraaKevaa/nevov' v. 18. 
[Kat et7re ^a^apias 7rpos] tov ayyeK' Kara ri yvtoao/ucu [tovto' 
kytv] yap eljju 7rpeaj3utr)S' Kal rj yvvi] jjlov 7rpo(5ej3riKv7a kv reus 



96 INSTANCE SELECTED AS A GUIDE 

ilfiepais avrrjs' v. 19. K(tl aTroicpide\s 6 ayyeXos clrrer avroj' 
eyio eijju ya(3pir)X 6 napeG-rjKios kvioiriov rov 6u' /cat aTrearcWrjv 
XaXrjvai irpos ae, Kat evayyeXloaaOat trot ravra' v. 20. cat 
iSov, ear] attorT Kat ju») dviafxevos XaXrjaat, «Xi°i *7 S *?/-^l° as > 
yevrjrat ravra' cu 0' iov ovk e-rriarevaas rols Xoyois juov, tnrtres 
7rXr)p(i)driarovrai els rbv Katpov avraiy. 

The differences which appear between the ac- 
centual marks as above set out in the manuscript 
No. 20, and those which appear in the two other 
manuscripts No. 18 and No. 21, are the fol- 
lowing : — 

V. 5. lepevc tic No. 18 has lepevc tic, which 
is an error in disregarding the enclitic : and even 
admitting tic not to be an enclitic, it should have 
been marked rlc, to distinguish it from the inter- 
rogative TIC. 

V. 5. aj3ia. No. 18 has kfaL No. 21 o/3m. 
This difference between No. 18 and No. 21 is 
merely whether the word should be considered 
as standing at the end of a sentence ; if it be, it 
should be marked (') ; if not, it should have the 
('), which, as we have seen, has been erroneously 
called in such cases the mark of the grave ac- 
cent : both writers consider the word as an oxy- 
tone, that is, a word whose last syllable is to 
be raised in the pronunciation ; so that this 
difference of the marks is really to be referred 
to a disagreement, not upon accentuation, but 
punctuation. Theophilus agrees with the other 
two in thinking the last syllable should be raised, 
because he fixes the mark of a circumflex ac- 
cent, which, as we have seen, contains an acute ; 



FOR THE VOICE IN READING. 97 

only he would raise it with a particular inflexion 
of the voice, whatever that inflexion was. The 
following differences turn on the same point: 

V. 3. KaOe^rjc. No. 21 has KaOe^ric. 

V. 9. Ovjuiaoai. No. 18 has Ov/uiaaai. The ac- 
cent is not legible in No. 21. 

V. 17. aireiOeU. No. 18 has direiOeic. The ac- 
cent in No. 21 is illegible. These numerous dis- 
crepancies between the acute and the circumflex 
marks make it probable that the distinction be- 
tween those accents in speaking was not very 
broad, that it was often overlooked, and perhaps 
fell into disuse before these manuscripts were 
written. 

V. 6, SiKauojULcuTi. No. 18 has SiKaltofiaai. If 

this w 7 ere the only word of a similar formation in 
that manuscript, we might suppose the writer to 
have ignorantly transferred the mark of the no- 
minative cu/ceuw/ua to an oblique case consisting 
of one syllable more ; but as he has affixed the 
proper mark to 6v6fxan and to OvuiapaToc, it is 
much more probable that it is a mere oversight. 

V. 9. vauv. The accent in No. 21 is illegible. 
No. 18 has vaov, which is an error, for it is im- 
possible to consider that word as standing at the 
end of a sentence : neither can the following rov 
be an enclitic, nor indeed does the writer so con- 
sider it, having marked it tov. 

V. 12. avrov : the two others have avrov. 

V. 15. ju?)\ I am unable to account for this 
double mark, which appears also in No, 18 : the 



W INSTANCE SELECTED AS A GUIDE 

word pi) has the ordinary single mark in two 
other instances in this manuscript, as it has here 
in No. 21. 

V. 17. r)Xiov: No. 18 has iJXta«. V. 19. ir P 6c 
ae : No. 1 8 has ae. Both these differences, as we 
have seen in the word a/3ia, are to be referred to 
the punctuation. The twenty verses in the ma- 
nuscript of Theophilus contain, after deducting 
the abbreviated words, two hundred and eighty- 
one accentual marks. From these must be de- 
ducted thirty-three, being the number of corre- 
sponding marks which are illegible in No. 21; 
of the remaining two hundred and forty-eight 
marks, eleven are different in one or both of the 
other two manuscripts, leaving two hundred and 
thirty-seven marks, being rather more than 
eleven-twelfths, in which the three manuscripts 
agree. 

Of the eleven discrepancies, one is occasioned 
by the omission of an enclitic : in four the writers 
agree that the accent ought to be the acute, but 
they disagree as to their manner of marking it ; 
in four others they agree that the syllable ought 
to be raised, but they disagree as to the parti- 
cular inflexion of voice in so raising it : one is 
occasioned by a double acute, which, for what- 
ever purpose introduced, shows at any rate that 
the syllable is to be raised ; and the only word in 
which we could possibly be left in doubt, as to 
the syllable which ought to be raised, would be 
SiKaicj/maoi ; and here we are enabled to speak 



FOR THE VOICE IN READING. 



9S 



with confidence, that the mark in the manuscript 
of Joasaph is wrongly placed, and to appeal for 
the truth of our criticism to the context and to 
the other two manuscripts. So that the discre- 
pancies in the three manuscripts, which are only 
just sufficient to prove that they could not have 
been copied from any one other manuscript of an 
earlier date, warrant us in concluding that the 
writers of them were all guided by the same sy- 
stem. They vary in correctness, that of Joasaph 
bearing more mistakes than either of the others ; 
but still the mistakes are not sufficient to throw 
any doubt upon the system. I feel confident 
that a more laborious collation of manuscripts 
would only strengthen the evidence of this agree- 
ment ; and I am led to think so by the agreement 
which I observe in the accentual marks of books 
printed in widely different places. On comparing 
the manuscript of Theophilus with an edition of 
the Greek Testament, printed at Oxford with 
Baskerville's types in quarto, in 1 763, I find the 
following differences : — 



MANUSCRIPT. 


BASK. EDIT. 


V. 5. — a/3ta . . . . 


. . 'A(3ia' 


aapujv . . . 


. . Aapow, 


V. 9. Ov/ULiaaat . . 


. . OvjuiaGcti 


V. 1 1 . — Sef luv . . . 


. . Se£iwi> 


V. 12. — avrov . . . 


. . avrov. 


v. 15.—^ .... 


. . ^77 


V. 17. — cnreiOela . . 


. . (nreiOeic 


V. 19. — 7rpoQ <re . . 


. . 7T/OOC (T€. 




H 2 



100 INSTANCE SELECTED AS A GUIDE 

leaving two hundred and seventy-three marks in 
which the book agrees with the manuscript. A 
comparison with the beautiful edition of Gries- 
bach, printed at Leipsic in 1803, gives the same 
result, the marks in the Leipsic edition agreeing 
exactly with the Oxford. 

I have chosen the two editions, not from find- 
ing in them a closer agreement than in others, 
but because they were printed in widely distant 
places, and each with so great attention to the 
beauty of the type, as makes it probable that the 
accentual marks are generally correct. And I 
have no question that the more editions we con- 
sult, the more shall we be impressed with their 
general agreement in this particular. And this 
agreement will naturally lead to the conclusion 
that the manuscripts from which these various 
editions have been prepared, notwithstanding 
their occasional inaccuracies, must have exhi- 
bited the same general agreement in their accen- 
tual marks which we have observed in the three 
manuscripts to which our more particular atten- 
tion has been called. If it be said that the edi- 
tors of these various books have placed the marks 
according to certain rules, this only shows that 
the agreement of manuscripts has been so com- 
plete, as to enable grammarians to form from 
them a consistent code, by which any word in 
the language may be marked. Neither does it 
weaken the argument, that the greater part of 
the editors who have adopted these marks have 



FOR THE VOICE IN READING. 101 

themselves used and taught a system of pronun- 
ciation not consistent with them ; but, on the 
contrary, we may infer, that it must have been 
a general consent of manuscripts which con- 
strained them to perpetuate a system which 
they were neither willing to follow nor able to 
confute. 

They who are convinced that the marks ought 
to be followed in pronunciation, will consider 
Greek literature as much indebted to the editors 
who have taken, from whatever motives, so much 
pains to preserve them. Porson often adverts 
to the importance of the marks in distinguishing 
two words which are written with the same let- 
ters. Some may have retained them from a per- 
suasion that they have been really guides for the 
true pronunciation, and might be so again. On 
the other hand, some considerable scholars have 
edited books without marks. Dr. Foster's atten- 
tion was first called to the subject by observing a 
congratulatory ode from Oxford so printed. Si- 
mon tells us that the writings of Henninius and 
Major had the effect of inducing many editors in 
Germany, and particularly in Lower Saxony, to 
omit the marks. (Introductio Grammatico-Critica 
in Linguam GrtEcam, ii 22.) Dawes's Miscel- 
lanea Critica has been published both here and 
in Germany without marks. The new edition 
of MorelPs Thesaurus, by the Bishop of Durham, 
has only the mark of the circumflex. And in 
truth, if we consider it certain that Greek ought 



102 INSTANCE SELECTED AS A GUIDE 

to be pronounced without reference to the marks, 
it must be owned that it is a pedantic and unpro- 
fitable task to write the marks at all, and still 
more to consult manuscripts and study works 
of grammarians as to the syllables over which 
they ought to stand. A mechanic who should 
spend his day in making a knife which is not to 
cut, or a gun which is not to go off, or a wheel 
which is never to go round, would not be more 
unprofitably employed than a critic engaged in 
the due disposition of marks, not one of which is 
to be of use in pronunciation. As to the use of 
them in distinguishing words which are written 
alike, these are few, and there can be no need to 
encumber with marks all the rest of the book : 
nay, the very fact of our observing a mark upon 
those words alone which require it, would better 
direct our minds towards their true meaning in 
those very few passages where it does not neces- 
sarily result from the context. The time too 
employed in teaching boys what we call Greek 
accents is, on the supposition of the inefficacy of 
the marks, entirely thrown away. Why employ 
them for hours in learning the rules for placing 
the marks ? and why refer them to Herodian and 
Apollonius the Crabbed for information, which, 
when procured, is utterly useless ? Why should 
Eustathius be consulted whether ep-nfioc, is to have 
an oblique stroke over the first syllable or a 
crooked stroke over the second, if in pronun- 
ciation the accent must be on the second syllable 



FOR THE VOICE IN READING. 103 

because it is long ? As well might we inquire 
whether Eustathius made a p with a straight tail 
or a crooked one. I cannot imagine a more 
grotesque waste of learning, than such pursuits 
under such a hypothesis : nor could there be an 
object over which the genius of pedantry would 
chuckle with truer mirth, than to see a boy, who 
was yesterday repeating the rule why OaXaacra is 
a proparoxytone, and is flogged to day for not 

Calling it OaXaaaa. 

I am in hopes that the method which I have 
adopted of stating a given passage of a given ma- 
nuscript, for our guidance in reading aloud, so as 
to reduce the question to a matter of arithmetic, 
may not be without its use. Taking this passage 
of Saint Luke as evinced by the manuscripts, we 
may affirm, that if there be an uncertainty in the 
manner of fixing the marks, it is an uncertainty 
which would not mislead us more than once in 
two hundred and eighty times in pronouncing 
the Greek language. And I shall accordingly 
endeavour to show, that in reading the first chap- 
ter of Saint Luke to the end of the 20th verse, 
our accentuation ought to be guided by the 
marks as they appear in the manuscript of Theo- 
philus ; that is, that we ought, in reading that 
passage aloud, to raise those syllables, and those 
only, over which we observe a mark. And I am 
satisfied that if I can succeed in carrying the 
reader so far along with me, we shall not dis- 
agree as to the accentuation of any passage in 
any other prose author. 



104 ACCENTS OF MONOSYLLABLES. 

ACCENTS OF MONOSYLLABLES. 

6. The accents of monosyllables leave little 
room for doubt or discussion. It may be stated 
as a general rule, that every word has an accent. 
Cicero says that nature has so ordained it : — 
" Ipsa natura quasi modularetur hominum ora- 
tionem, in omni verbo posuit acutam vocem, nee 
una plus, nee a postrema syliaba ultra tertiam." 
(Orat. c. 18.) And yet there are in Greek some 
exceptions to this rule, and these somewhat ar- 
bitrary, seeing that the definite article, for in- 
stance, has an accent on the neuter, and not on 
the masculine or feminine. Bishop Horsley says 
" that the words without an accent are fourteen 
in number." (On the Prosodies of the Greek and 
Latin Languages: London, 1796, p. 6.) The 
Bishop has not affixed his name to the treatise, 
but it is, I believe, generally understood to have 
come from his pen. Kuhner gives the following 
list of them : — 

a. Forms of the Article, o, 17, ol, at. 

b. OV (ovk, OU^). 

c. Prepositions, ei>, etc (ec), e/c (eg), we. 

d. Conjunctions, wc, ei. 

(Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache : 
Hanover, 1834; vol. i. p. 68.) 

There are some words, which, when standing 
at the beginning of a sentence, have an accent 
of their own, but which, in the middle of a sen- 
tence, incline or throw back their accent on the 
preceding syllable ; as in the sentence ao\ ravra 



ACCENTS OF MONOSYLLABLES. 105 

eypa\^a, for thee have I written these things, ool 
has an accent : but in e$o£ev i/nol KaOe^rjc aoi 
yptyai, <joi throws back its accent on the pre- 
vious syllable. These words are called enclitics ; 
and it happens in all languages, that the same 
word, when put prominently forward with a stress 
laid on it, shall have an accent, and when oc- 
curring in the ordinary course of a sentence shall 
have none : " You are the person for whom 
this was written :" and, on the other hand, " J 
thought it proper to write you an account of it." 
In this latter case the enclitic word becomes vir- 
tually embodied in the word preceding it ; and 
in the same way the unaccented words, particu- 
larly the prepositions, are incorporated with the 
succeeding word: " Cum dico, ' circum littora,' 
tanquam unum enuntio, dissimulata distinctione : 
itaque tanquam in una voce, una est acuta." 
(Quinctil. i. 5, 27.): so that there would per- 
haps be no impropriety in saying of these words 
that they throw the accent forward, as the encli- 
tics throw it back ; and Kiihner seems to en- 
tertain this view by calling them Proklitica or 
Atona. And accordingly these words, when at 
the end of a sentence, or placed after the word 
they govern, have an accent : as 

7r\rjdvos e.K Aavcaov, 
mas yap ov ; 

We find that every word in the manuscript of 
Theophilus, with the exceptions pointed out by 
Kiihner, has a mark : t<2v and kui are therefore 



106 QXYTONES. 

to be raised ; the distinction between the two 
sounds, whatever it was, being no longer within 
our reach. 

OXYTONES. 

7. Having thus briefly mentioned the accen- 
tuation of the monosyllables, upon which little 
question arises, I come to words of more than 
one syllable. Many of these having the mark 
on the last syllable (as ttoWoI), I shall endeavour 
to show that we ought to obey the mark, and 
that in reading 7roXXot, we ought accordingly to 
raise the second syllable and not the first : for 
we have already seen that this mark, though 
made from left to right, stands for the acute 
accent, and shows that the last syllable ought to 
be raised, or, in the ordinary language of gram- 
marians, that TroAXot is an oxytone. The pro- 
nunciation taught in the English schools and 
universities is directly contrary ; we lay the ac- 
cent on the first syllable, and make the word 
woWoi ; in short, our pronunciation of Greek is 
entirely barytone, as, with the exception of mo- 
nosyllables, where we have no choice, we never 
lay the accent on a final syllable at all. Why 
is this? Why, for instance, when we find a 
mark on the final syllable of 0eoc, do we refuse 
to regulate our pronunciation by it? the only 
reason that I am aware of is, that in Latin Deus 
is a barytone, and that deo<; ought to be pro- 
nounced in the same manner. Now that we are 
right in our pronunciation of Deus, we have an 



OXYTONES. 107 

authority which no scholar can dispute, namely 
that of Quinctilian himself, who says that Latin 
words terminate in a grave accent, and that in- 
variably ; but we learn from the same author in 
the same page, that the Greek accentuation was 
different. In comparing the two languages in 
respect to sweetness of modulation, after giving 
several instances of particular letters in which 
the Greek had the advantage, he proceeds to 
observe, that the Latin accents are less sweet, 
not only from a certain harshness, but also from 
their very monotony ; their last syllable never 
having an acute nor a circumflex, but terminating 
invariably in a grave. For this reason he says, 
that the Greek language is so much more agree- 
able than the Latin, that the Latin poets, when 
they wish a verse to be sweet in sound, ornament 
it with Greek nouns: " Sed accentus quoque, 
cum rigore quodam, turn similitudine ipsa minus 
suaves habemus, quia ultima syllaba nee acuta 
unquam excitatur, nee flexa circumducitur, sed 
in gravem vel duas graves cadit semper. Itaque 
tanto est sermo Greecus Latino jucundior, ut 
nostri poetae, quoties dulce carmen esse vom- 
er unt, illorum id nominibus exornent." (xii. 10, 
33.) It is difficult to conceive what authority 
can be set against this passage of Quinctilian, 
which affords the clearest demonstration that 
our accentuation of Greek is faulty, for this very 
reason, that it is the same as that of the Latin ; 
and that it is faulty in this very particular, that 



108 OXYTONES. 

it always makes Greek words barytones. For 
though Quinctilian does not in so many words 
predicate that many Greek words are oxytones, 
that proposition is as clearly implied, in the 
whole passage taken together, as if it were ex- 
pressly affirmed. Dr. Gaily indeed ventures to 
assert, that Quinctilian is mistaken in this matter, 
and that there was not in truth any difference in 
respect of accents between the Latin and the 
Greek. Now however specious a modern scholar's 
reasoning on this subject might have appeared, 
I should have been very unwilling to trust it on 
such a subject against a critic and grammarian 
who constantly heard both Greek and Latin as 
living languages ; and I should have been apt 
rather to suspect some fallacy in Dr. Gaily, 
though I might not have been able to point out 
where it lay, than a gross blunder in Quinctilian. 
But when we come to examine Dr. Gally's rea- 
sons, we shall find them built upon two palpable 
mistakes : he says, " This passage hath consi- 
derable difficulties. It would not be an easy 
matter to say what Quinctilian meant by a simili- 
tude of accents, if he had proceeded no farther. 
But he hath explained himself by saying, that 
the Greeks placed the acute and circumflex upon 
the last syllable, which the Latins never did, 
and that upon this account the Latin accents 
were not so sweet as the Greek. One cannot 
indeed refuse to Quinctilian the privilege of being 
his own interpreter. But then as the Latins 



OXYTONES. 109 

had the same number of accents with the Greeks, 
it cannot easily be conceived how a difference, 
arising from the mere placing of accents as to 
one syllable only, could cause a difference in 
the sweetness of them ; and snch a difference too 
as would in this respect give a considerable ad- 
vantage and superiority to the Greek language ; 
unless it can be proved that the placing of ac- 
cents on final syllables is more harmonious than 
the placing them on penultimates and antepe- 
nultimates. 

" But what is more material, if this point be 
accurately considered, no such difference between 
the Latin and Greek accents will be found as 
Quinctilian suggests. For the circumflex con- 
taineth an acute and a grave : therefore, when it 
is placed upon the last syllable of a Greek word, 
and resolved into its constituent parts, the pro- 
nunciation of this word will end in a grave. 
And though an accent be placed upon the last 
syllable of a Greek word, yet this is to take place 
only when the word is pronounced separately. 
For in discourse the final acute is always turned 
into, and pronounced as, a grave. Where then 
is the real difference, in this respect, between 
the Latin and Greek accentuation ? What foun- 
dation does this afford to blame the Latin man- 
ner as less harmonious and diversified than the 
Greek ? 

" Quinctilian appears still more prejudiced in 
favour of the Greeks, by what he says at the 



110 0XYT0NES. 

close of this passage. For what Latin poets 
have, in order to make their compositions more 
harmonious, made use of Greek words, merely 
because they were accented upon the last syl- 
lable?" (Second Dissertation against Greek Ac- 
cents, p. 36.) 

This is a fair specimen of the contradictions 
into which a correct and elegant scholar is forced 
by allowing the prejudices of his ear to control 
his judgement. The difficulties which Dr. Gaily 
finds in the passage are all of his own creation. 
It is true that the Latins had the same number 
of accents with the Greeks, but the question 
here is not as to the number of the accents, but 
the application of them ; and if in one language 
the accent be admitted in three places, while the 
other admits it only in two, it seems to be easy 
to conceive how this could cause a difference in 
the sweetness of them ; and particularly when we 
learn from a person of taste who had heard both, 
that he found such a difference. Neither is it 
necessary to say, that the placing of accents on 
final syllables is more harmonious than the pla- 
cing them on penultimates and antepenultimates. 
If the Greeks had made every word an oxytone, 
this would have been a monotony still more 
rigid, and doubtless more inharmonious than that 
of the Latins. No : the harmony of the Greeks 
consisted in this, — not that they placed the ac- 
cent on final syllables, but that they did not ex- 
clude it from final syllables, and that by giving 



OXYTONES. Ill 

it three places instead of two, they imparted a 
pleasing variety to the modulation of their lan- 
guage. But Dr. Gaily not only doubts Quinc- 
tilian's taste, but discredits his testimony. He 
roundly asserts that no such difference between 
the Latin and Greek accents will be found as 
Quinctilian suggests. In the case of a circum- 
flex, it seems that the Greek is the same as the 
Latin, because a circumflexed syllable ends in a 
grave. But Dr. Gaily here has confounded a 
grave sound with a grave syllable. It is true 
that a circumflex contained two sounds, one of 
which, and probably the latter, was grave ; but 
this grave was so blended (avve<p6apfxevri) with the 
acute, as to produce a peculiar sound, which 
required a name of its own to describe it, and 
must have been perfectly distinct from the sim- 
ple depressed sound of a grave syllable, or Quinc- 
tilian would not have said, as he has [p. 91], 
that the acute and the circumflex are the same. 
To express the difference at once by an instance : 
the last syllable of Gew is raised, but the last of 
Deo is depressed. 

As to what Dr. Gaily says of the final acute 
of an oxytone word being in discourse turned 
into, and pronounced as, a grave, this has al- 
ready been shown to be a mere misconception, 
arising from the inclination of the mark. And 
this passage of Quinctilian, instead of being 
refuted by Dr. Gally's reasoning, seems to be a 
strong additional authority for raising all those 



112 OXYTONES. 

final syllables on which we find a mark, whether 
written in one way or in the other. But sooner 
than admit that Quinctilian knew anything of 
the matter, we must discredit not only his ears, 
but his eyes also. When he said that Latin 
poets inserted Greek nouns into their verses, he 
must be understood to be speaking of what he 
himself had seen, and what his readers must 
have known as well as himself. But it seems he 
was mistaken. " For what Latin poets," asks 
Dr. Gaily, " have, in order to make their com- 
positions more harmonious, made use of Greek 
words, merely because they were accented upon 
the last syllable ? " I answer, all who have come 
down to us, and probably many who have not. 
It is true we do not usually find these words 
written in Greek characters, but the Greek form 
has been studiously preserved, and doubtless for 
the reason given by Quinctilian. Whether the 
oxytonic endearments, £w?? Kal ipvyv, which Ju- 
venal ridicules, owed any charms to their accent, 
I will not venture to decide ; but I would, on 
this subject, take the testimony of a Roman 
lady, if I could get it, before that of the most 
learned divine that ever filled a stall at Gloucester 
or Norwich. 

Whether Quinctilian's account of the Greek 
accents is to be understood of all the dialects, or 
only of the Attic, which in his time had so pre- 
vailed as to have perhaps nearly superseded the 
others, it is not easy to say. Dr. Foster devotes 



OXYTONES. 113 

a chapter to show the strong analogy between 
the Latin and the iEolian dialect, which admitted 
fewer oxytones tha -.i the other dialects, often 
throwing back the accent from the final to the 
penultimate syllable, as opaoj for o^w. (chap, iv.) 
As my remarks are confined to the Attic, it is 
not necessary for me to enter on this field of 
inquiry. 

But the authority of Quinctilian stands not 
alone : indeed we cannot read any work of any 
grammarian without seeing that our barytone 
pronunciation in numberless instances is directly 
contrary to that of the Greeks themselves. The 
scholiast on Homer, II. T. v. 1, on the accent of 
alnap, says that there is a dispute as to how it 
ought to be pronounced (irpotyepeaQai), and that 
some, as Callimachus, read it as an oxytone. 
Observe that I am not here relying on the opi- 
nion of the scholiast, as to the pronunciation of 
avTap, but I am giving him credit for knowing, 
either from a treatise of Callimachus, or an edi- 
tion of Homer marked by Callimachus, how that 
grammarian pronounced the word. I say pro- 
nounced, for irpoty'epeiv and irpocpopa always ex- 
press oral pronunciation. 

Apollonius has a disquisition extending over 
several pages, whether the preposition, when it 
comes after the noun, should have a different 
accent, as IOcikyiv Kara Koipaveovai (Syntax, iv. 1, 
2.), all which would be utter nonsense, if we 
suppose that these words were pronounced as 



114 OXYTONES. 



barytones, as they are by us, whether before or 
after the word which they govern. It is through- 
out assumed, that the ordinary accent of the pre- 
positions is on the last syllable, and those w T hose 
opinion the Grammarian is combating, seem to 
have asserted, that this accent ought in no case 
to be changed for a barytone : Ov ydp, cpaal, SeoV- 

twc rd rov rovov ajxeifierai ac fiapelav rdaiv, eirdv rd 

Trjc <™»>Ta£ewc evaXayy (p. 299). And in another 
treatise he says, that it is impossible for the pre- 
position to be a barytone, except when placed 
after the word it governs : Ka06n dSvvarov -n-po- 

Oeaiv fiapvveaQai, yjupic, ei imr) avaarpecpoiro' ouSe ydp 
AloXeiQ rov ewl ravraic rovov avafiif3aZ,ov(iiv. (De 

Pronomine, p. 93. ed. Bekker, Berolini, 1813.) 
He tells us also that oSaf and other similar 

Words are OXytoneS : 'S.vvei-^e rr)v 6%elav ro H ev 
role roiovroic eTripprifiaaiv, (Syntax, IV. 12. p. 336.) 
So e/jiol : H /uiev epoi o^vverai, r) Se e/mov rcepicnrarai. 
(De Pronomine, p. 12.) To Se avru 7repiG7ra0r)<jerai, 
on Kai ro avroc; o^vverai. (Ibid. p. 99.) So evroc,, 

eicroc, el/coc (De Adv. in Bekker. Anecdot. Grcec, 
p. 595) ; and IQvc, eyyuc (Ibid. p. 604) ; and evpv, 
and rayy (Ibid. p. 614). 

To show that adverbs in wc are derived from 
the genitive plural, of which they follow the ac- 
cent, and not from the genitive singular, he gives 

iravrwc, as an instance : To wavroc, o^vverai, r) 8e 
iravrcov yeviKr) fiapvverai' evOev Kai ro avvov eiripprjfia 

ovufiapvverai. (lb. p. 581 .) He says that no words 
are enclitic, except those which have the accent 



OXYTONES. 115 

on the last syllable, among which he mentions 
<j<pu)e, o<p(ji)'ii> f eif.il, and (prif.iL (Syntax, ii. 18. p. 138.) 
Again, in pointing out the distinction between 
eare, ye are, and eare, be ye, he repeats the same 

doctrine : O^vverai fuiev to opKTTiKov ev tm ea/nev Kal 
eare $ia to elvai eyKXiriKa, olc ov avveari fiapv to 
TeXoc' Kal €7reiSr) ev role TrpoaraKriKolc, dcpiararai r) 
ey/cXicnc, avva^iararai Kai r) em reXovc, o^ela, tJtic 
airia rjv rrJQ ey/cXtVewc. (Syntax, iii. 27. p. 261.) 
This passage proves, if proof be needed, that the 
term o^vverm, applied generally, means, having 
an acute on the last syllable. 

Herodian, speaking of the distinction between 
participles and adjectives, says : Tt Siatyepovow al 

peroral rwv ovop.aTWV ; $ia(pepov<nv, on i§ia rovovvrai 
al fxeroyjal, oiov eiaiv eic, EI2 ov6fiaTa t dXXd fiapv- 
Tova' fJLeroyri Se traaa o^vverai' oiov, to yap'ieic, ovofia 
fiapvverai, r) Se riOelc fxero^r) o^vverai. (YiapeK^oXal 
rov fxeyaXov pr)p,aroc. p. 213.) Atari to eiTre, Kal 
eXOe, Kal evpe,aopio rov ovra Sevrepov, o^vvovrai, rivv 
a\Xu)v (5apvvofAev(jJv ; eireiSrj rd aXXa fipayela wapa- 
XijyeTai, ravra Se fiaKpa' wc, ovv birjXXa^e Kara rr)v 
irapaXriyovaav, SiriXXa^e Kal wepl rriv raaiv. {Ibid. 
p. 203.) Tci Se eic, A2 o^vrova eire Or)XvKa eire Koivd, 
Kal ra eic, AS ovSerepa avvearaXfxevov e\ei to A, oiov 17 
rpiac, r) (j)vyac, Kepac,, Kpeac,' Ifxac Se Kai av^piac, el Kal 
o^vvovrai, o/liujc, apaeviKa bvra eKreivovrai. (DraCO 

de Metris, ed. Hermann. Lips. 1812, p. 12.) Taelc 

A2 o^uTO^a ovo/nara $icrvXXaf3a $ia rov Soc KXivo/uieva 
(JvareXXeaOai OeXei, oiov, (pvyac,, k.t.X. (Ibid. p. 18.) 

Athenseus, speaking of the proper accent of 

i2 



116 OXYTONES. 

Aaywc, Says : Ettrt § ot Ka\ ravr aXoywc, Kara rrjv 
TeXevTuyaav avXXapriv TrepiGTriofjievoyc Trpotyepovrai' eel 

§e o^vTovelv ttiv \e%iv. (ix. 52.) Here the only 
question was, whether the accent on the last syl- 
lable should be an acute or a circumflex ; a clear 
proof that our barytone pronunciation Xayuc is 
incorrect. The pronunciation, and not the mark, 
is here in question, as Athenseus does not say 
that they write it, but pronounce it, improperly: 

AeiracfTY}. 01 p.ev o^vvovai t?7^ TeXevraiav, wc KaXr)' 
ot Se TrapoZvvovGiv, u)Q p,eya\ri. (Athen<£US,xi. p. 484.) 

Here the viord KaXrj never would have been used 
as an instance, unless it had been notorious that 
it had the accent on the last syllable. So he 
remarks on the word Qdouri, that it ought to be 
an oxytone, like KapGi, natal, <f>0eip<ri, (xi. p. 502.) 

Pn-roV e')(6t to Y fipa'xy Kal o^vverai. (xi. p. 496.) 

Herodian says that the verbs ending in Q are 
barytones, to distinguish them from feminine 
nouns with the same termination, which are 

always OXytone : Ta ycip etc Q Xfiyovra OriXvicd 
ovo/tiara o^vvovrai, otoi>, KAetw, KaXvipio, TLeiOut. 

(TTape/c/SoAat, k. t. A, p. 190.) Coupling this re- 
mark with the passage above cited from Quinc- 
tilian, I feel almost as well assured, that Virgil, 
in reciting his own poem, pronounced Theano 
and Celceno as oxy tones, as if I had heard him 
myself. 

The example KaXvip<o leads to an observation, 
that though the other instances hitherto given 
have been words of two syllables, yet many words 



OXYTONES. 117 

of more than two syllables in Greek, have the 
accent on the last. Plutarch, in his Lives of the 
Ten Orators, relates that Demosthenes early in 
life introduced some pedantic and unusual modes 
of pronouncing particular words, which never 
failed to call forth the disapprobation of his au- 
dience : Q/uvve Se Kal tov A<r kXyittiov, Trpoirapo^vvwv 
A<Jic\ri7nov, Kal napeSeiKwev avrov opOtvQ Xeyovra' 
elvai yap tov Qeov rimov' Kai em tovtio ttoXXukic, 

eOopvPvOr). (vol. iv. p. 391. ed. Wyttenbach.) 
What was the meaning of this disturbance, if all 
the Greeks laid the accent on the antepenulti- 
mate of A<ncAr/7rioc ? Dr. Gaily cannot imagine 
that Demosthenes, who had been born and bred 
up in Athens, could be faulty in his accent. 
(Dissertation against Greek Accents, p. 127.) But 
his fault was not ignorance, but pedantry. He 
forgot that in these things usage must be para- 
mount. John Kemble always made aches a di- 
syllable in the verse of Shakspeare's ' Tempest,' 
" fill all thy bones with aches," and no doubt cor- 
rectly, but as he could never persuade his audi- 
ence to think SO, €7rt tovtio 7roXXaKiQ eOopvjSrjOrt. 

O Xeyijjv TT€pi(T7ru)juev(i}C eu-yei'r/c, to fiev GY]fxaiv6fxevov 
(frvXaTTei, WTaiei oe KaTa ti\v 7rpo(popav f irepiGiTWjuevrj 
^pu)fxevoc avT\ o^eiaQ. (Herodian, Ylepl Bap(3apKr/u.ov 

Kal ^oXoiKKTfiov, printed at the end of Valckenaer's 
Ammonius, Lugd. Bat. 1739.) Valckenaer does 
not affix the name of the author, but it is shown 
to be Herodian by Villoison (Anecdot. Gr&c. vol. 
ii. p. 175, see Schoell, Histoire de la Literature 



118 OXYTONES. 

Grecque profane. Paris, J824. vol. v. p. 29.) 

iSov -yap Kai en' aXXwv avvOeaewv §ia(popoi tovgi 
eyevovro' u^vverai to evreXriG, eueiSi7C, aXX ovKeri 
to evftiiKriG, fiieyaKJiTrjC, KaOb to H e^ei napeSpevo- 

pevov. (Apollonius. Syntax, ii. 31. p. 188.) I do 
not understand the reason given ; but I think it 
more reasonable to suppose that Apollonius did, 
than to assert that he knew nothing of the mat- 
ter, and that all these words had a barytone 
pronunciation. Again Apollonius tells us that 
all the compounds of epyov are oxytones, as /uov- 

aovpyoc, eXeCpavrovpyoc, v-trovpyoG. (De Pronom. p. 

39.) So the demonstratives eiceivoai, ovroal. (p. 45.) 

$>aai yap, irav bvo/tia anXovv etc H2 Xrjyov, b^vrovov, 
tout! e£ avayKrjc avv tw 2 Kara ri)v yeviicriv e^eve- 
ydiiaeTai, o\ov, ev(bvr\c, ev(j>vovG } evcrefirjc evaefiovc, 
evicXerjG eu/cXeovc" roivvv Kai to evfxevric, o^vtovwg 
eKipepOfJLevov, irapairXriGitoG tovtoig o\ci tov 2, e7rl ttjg 
yevuciic TTpoaeveKTeov, evfxevovG XkyovraG. (Sextus Em- 
piricus ad Gram-mat . c. 10.) The great etymo- 
logist, on the word rapfeiac, says that Aristar- 
chus makes it an oxytone like ttvkvug, but Diony- 
sius Thrax a barytone like ra-^eiac. He adds 
that the latter mode was more strictly according 
to analogy, but that the reading (avayviucnc) of 
Aristarchus had prevailed. 

Eustathius on the word &vXcikovg (Horn. II. Q.) 
says that Aristarchus is said to pronounce it 
(Trpocpepeiv) as an oxytone, and to lay it down as a 
canon, that adjectives of more than two syllables 
ending in kog after the letter A, are oxytones ; as 



OXYTONES. 119 

/maXaKoc, TrepSaKoc, (^ap/LLaKOC, avaKOQ. (Ed. Basil. 

p. 1504.) Aristarchus also made napeia an oxy- 
tone from irapeiai, as irXevpa from 7r\evpal, and 
irvpa from irvpat. (Eustath. ad Horn. II. T. p. 285.) 
So nouns of more than two syllables ending in 
2TH2 which are derived from verbs: Ta ek 

2TH2 prj/maTiKa, ore earlv vnep <t>vo GvXXafiac;, ofv- 
verai, eiXairivaar^c.^ Xidaar7]Q, OepivrfiG. (Apollonius 

De Adverb. Bekker. Anecdot. Grcsc. p. 545.) Ta 

etc, A Xfiyovra eiripprifiiara rj o^vverai, wc Srj0a, Kava- 
yj)§a, irvKvd' rj fiapvverai, toe, raya, Xiya, avra, 

irpioTa. (Ibid, p. 562.) Apollonius, after taking up 
a page to prove that ovSa/ma ought to be an oxy- 

tone, Concludes, To?c Sri roiovroic avjuirapaKeirai 
e7Tippr)ixaTa o^vvo/iieva eic, A Xr)yovra, ttvkvoc, 7tvkv(jjg 
ttvkvu, KaXoc KaXuic KaXa' vyirjc apa r) raaic Kara 
rrjv ofetav ev tw ov^afia. (Ibid. p. 566.) Again he 
tells us that derivative adverbs ending in I are 
oxytones, and the instances he gives are aOeojprjri, 

aKOviri, a/uLoyrjTtf cucXavTi, irapOoivl. (Ibid. p. 571.) 

The whole book of Apollonius ' On Adverbs/ 
treats so much of their accents, and lays down so 
many and sometimes so subtle rules for them, as 
to prove clearly the variety of the Greek accents. 
Eustathius on the word 'EpvOpds (Horn. II. B.), 
says that Apion and Herodorus make it an oxy- 
tone like KaXac. (p. 202.) 

In addition to these express authorities I would 
ask, How could the very word o^vrovov ever have 
found its way into the Greek language, if the 
thing which it describes had no place there ? or 



120 OXYTONES. 

where would have been the need of such a di- 
stinction as fiapvTovov, if the whole language had 
been barytone ? How could the term ava(3i(3aoii6c 
have been applied at all to words of two syllables, 
if they had invariably the accent on the first ? 
That term implies a transferring of the accent 
from its usual place to a prior syllable. But where 
the accent is already on the first syllable, how 
can any question arise whether it ought to be 
placed higher ? and yet we find whole pages in 
the grammarians, and particularly in Apolloriius, 
as to the propriety of the avafiifiaonoc of words, 
many of which are disyllables, as nepl and wapa. 
The reasons given are subtle, and not always 
intelligible to a modern scholar. But we need 
not enter into the merits of the dispute ; the fact 
of the dispute having arisen is enough for the 
point I am now endeavouring to prove. 

It may be worth observing, that many of the 
passages cited afford a more particular proof than 
that already given, that the mark (') at the end 
of a word must stand for an acute ; because we 
find it marked over the last syllable of the very 
words which the grammarians call oxy tones. 
General reasoning shows that ^e^ot must have an 
acute somewhere, and therefore probably on the 
last ; but this becomes a certainty when we find 
particular testimony for its being an oxytone, in 
authors of competent knowledge, not one of 
whom gives the remotest hint that it is less an 
oxytone in the middle, than at the end, of a sen- 



OXYTONES. 121 

tence. A great probability too is given to an 
oxytone pronunciation of some words, from their 
being used in totally different senses, though 
spelled in the same manner. A^juoq means people, 
or fat ; Oea, spectacle, or goddess ; aywv, contest, 
or leading ; according to its mark, and therefore 
probably to its pronunciation. The passage of 

riOtner Otypa crawvrjs 

Tjowus teal Tpioas (//. X. 56.), 

in our monotonous manner of reading it, sounds 
like an unmeaning repetition. 

We find many words used in different senses 
according to their accent, in Ammonius (Uepl 
Aia(^6pu)v Ae£,eu)v) ; and, though he wrote after the 
second century, he occasionally quotes gramma- 
rians of an earlier date ; as for instance, Tryphon : 

M.iGriTrj Kai fiiar\Tri dia<pepei irapa Tote AttikoIc wg 
(j>Y](7i Tpvcfrwv, ev Sevrepio irepl 'AttikyJg Trpoawdiac;' edv 
fiev yap oc,vTOvr)(Jii)/ii€v, ar\p,aivei ty\v at,iav (xhjovc, 
{jcaQa kcli 7\fxeLQ ev ry Gvvr)deia irpo<pep6ixeQa)' eav $e 
f5apvrov^a(Oju,ev , r?7i> Kara(f)eprj irpoc, avvovaiav. {In 

voce Mkjyitt).) Here again the word 7rpo(pep6^e9a 
shows, that he means the pronunciation, and not 
the marking, of the word. 

Further, many words have the mark of the 
circumflex on the last syllable, which ought there- 
fore to be raised in the pronunciation, though we 
be unable to give it the exact modification of 
sound which that mark requires. Apollonius 
says that adverbs ending in OY are circumflexed 
(TrepioTrarai), which expression always means that 



122 OXYTONES. 

the last syllable has a circumflex, in the same way 
as b^vverai means that the last syllable has an 
acute ; the instances he gives are, tiifou, ttjAou, 
ay^ov, avrov. (De Adverb, in Bekker. Anecdot. 
GrcBC. p. 587.) 

So adverbs in 01, as Meyapo7, Io-fyuoi, evravOol. 

(Ibid. p. 588.) So wXaKovc, because it is contracted 

from 7rXa/coeic, as rvfJoeiQ Tvpovc, (rrjaafioeic crijcra- 

fiovc [Aihen. xiv. 644.) One of the guests in 
Athenseus, reproaching the morals of his com- 
panion, Says, 2v §e, w GO<ptara, ev role KairriXeioic 
avvava(pvpy ov fxera eraipu)v y aXXa /nera eraipwv. 

(xiii. p. 567.) How could any effect, or indeed 
any meaning, be given to this satire, without 
laying an accent on the last syllable of the last 
word ? Solon in a scholium on Homer (77. E. 656), 

says : '0 fxev ' Apiarapyoc to ctfxapry \wpiG rov I 
ypa(pei Kai o^vvei. 01 $e irepi Jipw^iavov irepiGTrwai, 

teal irpovypcKpovcn. (Valckn. Animadversion, ad Am- 
monium, p. 241.) Here the only point in differ- 
ence between these great critics and gramma- 
rians was the kind of accent to be laid on the 
last syllable ; but to lay it on the middle syllable, 
as we do, did not occur to either of them. 

Plutarch, in his life of Theseus, has the fol- 
lowing passage : Kat avv avrolc, \LpfAOV, avSpa rwv 
Adrjvyaiv evTraTpiccjv' a<p ov Kai tottov ILp/uov KaXeiv 
o!/aa»> tovq TTvdoTToXiTac' ovk opOwc rr\v Sevrepav gvX- 
Xapriv wepiGTTwvTac Kai tt\v §6%av eiri deov a—6 iipwoc 

^erariOevTaQ. How is any sense to be made of 
this passage, but by supposing that the genitive 



OXYTONES. 123 

of EpfioQ had the accent on the first syllable, and 
the genitive of Epprjc, Mercury, on the second? 

There are, in the first ten verses of the manu- 
script of Theophilus, eighty-two words of more 
than one syllable, of w T hich eleven have an acute, 
and thirteen a circumflex on the last ; this exactly 
agreeing with what Quinctilian says of the va- 
riety of the Greek accent, as contrasted with the 
monotony of the Latin, in which " Ultima syllaba 
nee acuta unquam excitatur, nee flexa circumdu- 
citur," makes it in the highest degree improbable 
that all these marks on the last syllable should 
be wrong : at any rate, it is impossible that our 
accentuation of the Greek language in general 
can be right, inasmuch as we make every poly- 
syllable a barytone, and elaborately introduce 
into Greek that very monotony which Quinctilian 
observes with regret to be inseparable from the 
Latin. 

Having thus shown that many polysyllables 
are accented on the last syllable, I have a right, 
on the authority of the manuscript of Theo- 
philus, confirmed as it is by the two others, and 
by the Oxford and Leipsic editions, to assume 
that TroXXot is one of those words, till it can be 
shown, either that the monotonous accentuation 
which Quinctilian deprecated, is the true one, 
or that, though there be oxytones among the 
polysyllables, 7ro\\ol is not one of them. Why 
the Greeks should lay the accent on the las 
syllable of iroWol, and on the first of \6yoic, 



124 DISYLLABLES. 

I will endeavour to explain when I suffici- 
ently understand why the English say holloiv 
and bestow. It was so because usage would 
have it so : language in all its bearings is very 
arbitrary, and can seldom be explained by the 
eternal fitness of things. For the same reason 
that we lay the accent on the second syllable of 
ttoXAoI, we shall of course lay it on the second 
of wepl, and all other words marked in the same 
manner. 

DISYLLABLES. 

8. We see that the accentuation of the oxy- 
tones, if not entirely arbitrary, depends upon 
various rules, many of them subtle, and some of 
them disputed. The rules for the accents of 
barytone words are more simple and regular. A 
disyllable barytone, since it must have an accent, 
must of course have that accent on its first syl- 
lable. In what cases this accent is to be an 
acute, and in what a circumflex, it is of little im- 
portance to inquire, until we know how to make 
the proper distinction between them in pronun- 
ciation : it is enough for our present purpose to 
know, that the first syllable of e^w and of 
Sr^uoc must be raised, because we find a mark 
on it. I have considered the question to be one 
of choice, which of the two syllables of the word 
is to be raised. This may be the fittest place to 
observe, that to raise both, though not physically 
impossible, would be against the analogy of all 



TRISYLLABLES. 125 

language. Cicero indeed assumes it as a law of 
nature, that no word is to have more than one 
acute (above, p. 104). That the rule obtained at 
least in Greek we learn from Dionysius : TaTc £e 

7roAu<xuAAaj3oic, oiai ttot av wtni>, rj toi> o£vv tqvov 
eyovaa /nia ev iroWaic fiapeiaic eveon. (xi. 78.) 

TRISYLLABLES. 

9. In words of more than two syllables, not 
oxytones, we shall no longer find conflicting and 
arbitrary decisions, but a systematic rule, though 
liable to some exceptions ; and all words of more 
than two syllables, of whatever length, may be 
classed together, the rule being that the accent is 
never placed further back than the third syllable 
from the end. Cicero ventures to lay it down 
in a passage already cited, to be a law of nature, 
that the accent is never to be further carried 
back ; which is at least a proof that this rule 
obtained in the Latin and Greek. That a fur- 
ther carrying back of the accent involves no 
insuperable difficulty, is proved by our English 
pronunciation. But the Greeks never carried it 
so far back themselves, and would no doubt have 
considered as barbarians any nation who did ; 
accordingly, to avoid circumlocution, when I 
speak of the accents of trisyllables, I intend that 
term to be understood of all words of more than 
two syllables. Not that I think it likely, nor 
indeed possible, that in a very long word all the 
syllables but one can have been equally depressed, 



126 TRISYLLABLES. 

Iii 6\fiio$ai/mu)v, for instance, the first syllable, 
though grave as compared with the fourth, was 
most likely more elevated than the second and 
third. But for the ordinary purposes of pronun- 
ciation, it is sufficient to say, that there is but 
one accent to each trisyllable, and that accent, 
supposing the word not to be an oxytone, is laid 
either on the last syllable but one, or the last but 
two, according to the following rules : — When the 
last syllable is long, the word has its accent on 
the last but one, or penultimate (wapo^vverai) ; 
and when the last is short, the word has its 
accent on the last but two, or antepenultimate 
(jrpoTrapo^vveTai). There are in the twenty verses 
of the manuscript of Theophilus, fifty words of 
more than two syllables with the last syllable 
long, after deducting Hebrew proper names, 
abbreviations, and words accented on the last 
syllable. Of these fifty, there are thirty-six which 
have the mark on the last but one. There 
are, after making similar deductions, forty-one 
words of more than two syllables, having the 
last short : all of these except seven have the 
mark on the antepenultimate. Of the seven ex- 
ceptions, eneiSriTrep, kclOoti and §i6ti are rather 
apparent than real ; being compounded of two or 
more words, they might be written separately, 

eireiSri wep, KaO' o, ti and $i o, n. Upo(pavec ovv 
yevrjaerai, wc ei'rj ev rpiei jxepecn Xoyov, irpodeaewc 
rric §ia Kara vvvSeajuiKriv avvra^iv <frepofikvr\c, eir ai- 
TiaTtKrjv, Kal 7rapaX\ri\(i)v §vo tttmtikwv, tou o kqi 



TRISYLLABLES, 127 

tou Tt, irTioG€U)G bvTbJV ovk aXXyc h airiariKVQ' V avrri 
airoSeiZiQ ovveari Kai enl rov KaOori. (Apollonius. Syn- 
tax, iv. 5. p. 315.) The real exceptions are thus 
reduced to four. So that we are warranted in 
laying down the rule, that the accent of Greek 
words of more than two syllables, not being oxy- 
tones, depends on the quantity of the last syllable. 
This appears pretty clearly from a passage in 
iElius Dionysius, cited by Eustathius, in which 
such a rule is assumed : Ot naXaiol AttikoI, Kara 

AiXiov Aiovvgiov, eZereivov rac, riov toiovtuv ovofxarwv 
Xrjyoixrac' $t o Kai 7rapi*)%vvav avra' 7) ayvoia yap, 
cf)r](Tiv, e'Xeyoy, Kai 17 evicXeia, Kai r) iepeia, teal 17 
Siavoia, Kai rj avai^eia &e (privi, Kai fi irpovoia' u>v irav- 
twv eKreiverai fiev rj reXevrata. (Eustath. in Odyss. 

H. vol. hi. p. 284. ed. Basil. 1559.) He seems to 
consider that it follows as a matter of course, 
from the last being long, that the accent is to be 
on the penultimate. 

Apollonius says {Be Adverb. Bekker- Anecd. 

GrcEC. p. 577), Ta etc Q Xriyovra eiripprjiuara wapo- 
l^vverai KaQuQ e^ei ra irpoKareiXeyfxeva, Trpoau), eau), 

Karu) f eyyvTepu). Then after mentioning aVew, 
which is formed from the Attic avews, he says 
that the rest must by analogy be paroxytones : 

Ou Swapevric Ti)G o^e'iaQ rpirrjc awo reXovo Triwreiv. 

He does not indeed give the reason, but it is 
evident that it must be on account of the length 
of the last syllable. The proposition cannot be 
general, for that would be against all reason and 
experience, but must clearly be understood to be 



128 TRISYLLABLES. 

confined to the subject of which he is speaking, 
namely, adverbs ending in Q, and proves our 
accentuation of eyyvrefMD to be wrong. 

Why the accent of one syllable should depend 
upon the quantity of another, we must be content 
to refer to usage alone. It may perhaps be said, 
that the act of raising a syllable requires a cer- 
tain exertion of the voice, after which it is un- 
easy to prolong a sound, which is equivalent to 
holding a note in singing, beyond a certain 
length : but how has the maximum of that length 
been fixed ? rather perhaps by the usage of the 
Greeks than by the nature of things. The Latin 
mode agreed with the Greek in this, that after 
the raising of a syllable, it would not admit in 
the same word a protraction beyond one long and 
one short syllable. But whether the long syl- 
lable precedes or follows the short one, seems 
immaterial, as far as the exertion of the voice 
goes. It requires nearly the same exertion to 
pronounce ty'r annus as qSikovc, and yet the Latins 
reject the first and the Greeks the second. Of 
all nations the English, who can pronounce the 
word unconscionableness with perfect facility, are 
least likely to suppose any property of the human 
voice, which prevented the Greeks throwing back 
their accents further than they did. To what- 
ever causes we may refer this mode of accentua- 
tion, we are warranted by the manuscript of 
Theophilus in pronouncing e§o%ev and irpayimaTwv. 
I shall endeavour to show by quotations from 



TRISYLLABLES. 12!) 

writers of undisputed authority, that both these 
words were so pronounced by the Greeks them- 
selves, or in the ordinary language of gramma- 
rians, that e$o£ev was a proparoxytone, and irpay- 
fiariov a paroxytone ; and first that e'Sof ev was a 
proparoxytone, and ought not only to be marked, 
but also pronounced, accordingly. It must be 
admitted, that the passage already cited from 
Quinctilian does not prove this point, because 
the particular instance he gives is strictly appli- 
cable to oxytones alone ; but it at least puts us 
on our guard against assuming, in the present 
case, that analogy between the Latin and Greek 
accentuation which has already led us astray in 
the pronunciation of ttoXXoi. But we shall find 
other authorities for the point more immediately 
in question, and first that of Quinctilian him- 
self: he speaks of some of his countrymen who 
were great sticklers for preserving their own 
pronunciation and orthography, even in those 
words which they had borrowed from the Greek, 
and after giving several instances, he goes on : 
" Ne in A quidem atque S literas exire temere 
masculina Grseca nomina recto casu patiebantur: 
ideoque et apud Cselium legimus, Pelia Cincin- 
natus : et apud Messalam, Benefecit Euthia : et 
apud Ciceronem, Hermagora : ne miremur, quod 
ab antiquorum plerisque iEnea et Anchisa sit 
dictus ; nam si ut Maecenas, SufFenas, Asprenas 
dicerentur, genitivo casu non E litera, sed TIS 
syllaba, terminarentur. Inde Olympo et tyranno 

K 



130 TRISYLLABLES. 

acutam mediam syllabam dederunt, quia duabus 
longis sequentibus prim am brevem acui noster 
sermo non patitur." (i. 5, 61.) It is true that 
there is a trifling degree of obscurity in the latter 
part of the last sentence. Gesner has observed 
this, and concludes, as critics are apt to do, that 
what he cannot understand must be inaccurate. 
" Parum accurata ista videri possunt. Primo 
enim duabus longis sequentibus primam, sc. ante- 
penultimam, acui non Latinus tantum sermo non 
patitur, sed neque Grsecus, qui oXv/ulttoc cum 
patiatur, oXv/unrw respuit : deinde apud Latinos 
ultima hie non respicitur, sed sola penultima, 
nee magis Olympus et tyrannus primam acuere 
possunt, quam Olympo et tyranno : denique in 
utraque lingua nulla plane habetur prima? syllabae 
ratio, ita quidem ut OvXvjmiroc nusquam in accentu 
diversum quid patiatur ab altero illo OXv^ttoc. 
Neque tamen est ut librarios hie accusemus. Vi- 
detur primo Fabius ipse primam positionem OXv/u- 
7roc, Tvpawoc cogitasse. Ilia deinde exempla, quod 
solet, casu inflexit ad ordinem constructionis et 
verbum dederunt. Turn in ratione accentus ex- 
plicanda ad hos ipsos casus, quos posuerat, tantum 
attendisse, et qua? multo latius patent, ad hsec sola 
vocabula, et quse his undecunque similia sunt, 
restrinxisse." For my own part, I had rather 
suppose Quinctilian to mean something more 
than he has expressed, than to have expressed 
his meaning so inaccurately. We must remem- 
ber, that he here is not laying down the correct 



TRISYLLABLES. 131 

mode of accenting Latin, but is relating the 
caprices of certain critics, with whom he himself 
perhaps did not agree. These critics wrote the 
word Pelia without the final S of the Greek TrriXtac. 
Why ? It does not appear that they would have 
objected to write it with the S in the nominative 
case if it had stopped there ; but their objection 
was, that if they wrote it Pelias in the nominative, 
they should be obliged by the analogy of their 
language, from which they were unwilling to 
depart, to make it Peliatis in the genitive. So 
they perhaps might not have felt much repug- 
nance at calling it tyrannus or olympus : but here 
again the analogy of the language interfered, for 
as in Latin, the quantity of the last syllable has 
no effect on the accent, the oblique cases of words 
ending in US have always the accent on the same 
syllable as the nominative ; dominus making do- 
mini, domino, dominum. So that if they had 
made it tyrannus in the nominative, they must 
have made it ty'ranni, ty'ranno, tyr annum. This 
would have produced an accentuation which would 
have been strange to a Roman ear, and still more, 
when the accent was not only removed from its 
proper place, but transferred also from a long to 
a short syllable ; and indeed Quinctilian seems 
in this whole passage to be only following up, 
either unconsciously or intentionally, the same 
account which Cicero gives of the old school of 
etymology, in the passage in which he says that 
the ancient Latins, and Ennius among them. 

k2 



132 TRISYLLABLES. 

wrote Bruges instead of Phryges ; because the 
latter mode of spelling the nominative case would 
have obliged them to write the oblique cases also 
with Greek letters, though with Latin termina- 
tions. Phryges would be a complete Greek word ; 
Brugibus, a complete Latin word ; Phrygibus, 
neither the one nor the other : " Vi patefecerunt 
Bruges, non Phryges ipsius antiqui declarant 
libri ; nee enim Grsecam literam adhibebant 
(nunc autem etiam duas) : et cum Phrygum et 
cum Phrygibus dicendum esset, absurdum erat, 
aut tan turn barbaris casibus Grsecam literam adhi- 
bere, aut recto casu solum Greece loqui." (Orator. 
48.) But whether this solution be correct or not, 
it is impossible, unless we go beyond Gesner, and 
pronounce the whole passage of Quinctilian to 
be absolute nonsense, to avoid the conclusion, 
that at that time the Greeks laid the accent on 
the first syllable of OAv^7roc and of rvpawoc : for 
had they called those words OXv/uttoc and rvpawoc, 
this would have agreed with the ordinary Roman 
accentuation, and would have left nothing to 
change: whereas the word "dederunt" neces- 
sarily implies, that the critics in question did 
make a change, did give (that is, apply) an accent 
to a syllable in the Latin word, which had none 
in the corresponding Greek word. Apollonius, 
in contending that olicovSe and words of that con- 
struction are not adverbs, but that they consist 
of two words, a noun and the particle Se, says 
that this is proved by the accent : Td pev e'/c rrjc 



TRISYLLABLES. 133 

Taaeuc, 7rpo(pavrj' 7rwc yap rpirr\ a7ro reXovc r) irepi- 
GTnofievr) ; 7rwc reraprr} airo reXovc 17 o^ela ; Xeyu) ev 

t« oiKovSe, ovXv/LiirovSe. (De Adverbio in Bekker. 
Anecdot. Grac. p. 592.) This proves beyond a 
question, that the accent was on the first syllable 

Of OvXv/UTTOV. 

Tryphon, speaking of the accent of irov-qpoc, and 
juoy^Oripoc, argues that they ought, according to 
analogy, to have the accent on the last syllable, 
though the Attics make them barytones : El de 

ol Attikoi fiapvrovovaiv, ov Oavfxanrov earC yaipovai 
yap rrj fiapitTriri' a$eX<pe yap Xeyovat, rr\v 7rpu)Tt}u 

6£vtovovvt€c, wc a7reX0e. (Cit. in Amnion. Hepl 

Ofxo'iujv /cat $ia<popiov Xe^ewv. VOC. Ylovrjpov.) Apol- 

lonius says that words having an acute or a 
circumflex on the penultimate, yet when com- 
pounded, have the accent on the antepenultimate, 
as Kovpoc, aKovpoQ, ewiKovpoc, &c. (Syntax, i. 23. 
p. 60.) The same author tells us that we may 
know by the accent, whether a part of a sentence 
is to be taken to consist of two words or of one: 

To yap Aioc Kopoc, Trapo^vvo/tievov fiev rrjv yeviicrjv 
e^ei idia voov pevriv, op.oiov ov tw Aioc vioc, irpoirapo- 
%vvopevov Se, o/noiov earl tw AioyvrfroQ AiogtSotoc* 

(Syntax, iv. I. p. 298.) And again, in pursuing 
the same subject with respect to verbs, after 
saying that we cannot distinguish by the accent 
of KaOrjxpa or irpoelyov, whether they are com- 
pounded or separate words, he adds, that the 
fact of composition is at once ascertained in these 
words, in which the accent is carried back (to?c 



134 TRISYLLABLES. 

avaftifiaZopevoic). The examples he then gives 

are : 'Avej3(j3a(X0rj to KaOr)rai, ro ovveifxi, to ovfxtyi)fjLi, 
to avvoi<ia, 

ko.t€\ ovpai 6v' 
Neorwp B' avris e<pi£e' 

eveaav aTOvoevres oiaroi' 

lyviaav /xeyaXo) aXaAr/rw* 

aWa 7r\eiGTa,v7rep wv rdc airiac, eKdriaopeOa' ljc ye Kai 
eirl tcjv ovofxaTtov C^a/uev riva avvTide/meva avaj3ij3a£eiv 
to»> TOi>oy, Kai Tiva Ttjv TavTOTrjTa too tovov rripelv. To 
Se fiei'Cov, oAtj rj 7rpoaTaKTiKri eyjcXcfftc koto tt)V twv 
evepyrjTiKwv p^juLardJV irpofpopav ovaa c\cruAAaj3oc civa- 
)3ij3a£ei toi/ tovov, KareXOe, /caTaXa|3e, Trepiypa(j)e, 
Kai ov$e Kar ok'iyov ^lara^ai earl irepl rrjc (JvvOeaeuJC. 

(iv. 8. p. 323.) That Apollonius, in this and 
similar passages, is speaking, not of marks, but 
of accents, that is, of actual pronunciation, is 
proved, if proof can be thought wanting, by the 
expression -n-potyopav, Again he says : 'A™ yovv 

tov oouXoc Trpoirepiairojiievov to gvvoovXoc, Kai koivov 

Kai 7rpoirapo^vv6iuLevov. (De Pronom. p. 37.) And in 
discussing the question, whether the first letter 
of eKeivoc is pleonastic, he says : To E ir\eovalov 

ev SiGvWafioiG avaf3i(3a£ei tov tovov, eeiirev, eopyev, 
eeoVa, eaSev, ei nXeovaafioc' to yap eupwv 8ia to 
"XpoviKOv irapayye\fia ovk avef3if3a<re tov tovov, 7rwc 
oovou irpoirapo^vveTai to eKeivoc ; {Ibid, p. 74.) His 

expression as to ewpw, evidently supposes the 
rule above laid down as to the accent depending 
on the quantity of the last syllable. 

Herodian goes so far as roundly to accuse of 



TRISYLLABLES. 135 

barbarism those who pronounce /3ouXa^ua« instead 

of ftovXtojuai' Kara §e tovov fiapfiapiCovaiv o\ Xe- 
yovrec eav fiovXivfiai, Kai eav ap^u/uai' Set yap Xeyeiv, 
eciv j3ovXa>juai, Kai eav apyuuai' eTreidrj ra viroraKTiKa 
role iSioic opiariKolc, OjLiorovel, (f)epo/mai, eav tyepuyfiai, 
Xeyo/uiai, eav Xeyiojuai' ovtid Kai eav povXto/uiai, Kai eav 
ap-^Mfiai. O/uoitJG Kai irepl rove, tovovc fiapfiapi^ovGiv, 
ol Xeyovrec aKparov TrpoirepiaTrtojLievujc,' del yap Xeyeiv 

aKparov 7rpoirapo^vr6vii)c. (De Barbarismo et Solw- 
cismo, p. 196.) The same author says that nouns 
when compounded sometimes throw back their 

accent, as aX»70>jc, <^)iXaXrj0»?c, ap\aloc, tyiXapyjiioc. 
(TlapeicfioXai, k. t. X. p. 213.) 

It must however be admitted, that the accentu- 
ation of some trisyllables having in the penulti- 
mate a diphthong or a long vowel, appears to have 
been different at different periods. Isaac Vossius 
lays it down that the word avopowe should be avo- 
povue, and TToXv^aXicov should be iroXv^aXicov; and 
in support of his position, after citing some au- 
thors whose works are not now extant, he goes on : 
" Sed et ex iis, qui omnium manibus teruntur, 
compilatore videlicet Etymologici Magni, et Eu- 
stathio, idem observare est, utpote qui non uno 
loco testentur, in antiquis exemplaribus et prse- 
ceptis veterum Grammaticorum, longe diversam 
accentuum occurrere rationem ab ea quae postmo- 
dum placuit. In iis enim monent, non scriptum 

fuisse kroi/mov, eprijuiov, rpoiraiov, sed eroi/mov, epfjjmov, 
Tpo-iralov. Item non rayvrr)C, rayvrrjroc, et (3pa§v- 
tjjc ppacvrqroc, sed Tayyry\c, rayvrr\roc, et ppacvrrjc, 



13'J TRISYLLABLES. 

flpaSvTrJTOQ, et sic in ceteris omnibus, ita ut ac- 
centus verse et naturali syllabarum semper con- 
veniret mensurae." (DePoematum Cantu et Virions 
Rhythmi, Oxon. 1673. p. 19.) The passages to 
which he refers seem to be the following : {Ety- 

mol. Magn.) — Uav ktyitikov ov^erepov, cnro Qy}\vkov 
yeyovoc, Tpirriv cnro rekovc, e^et tt^v ofeTav* oiov, 
KeCpaX^ Ke(j)a\aiov' yvvr\ i yvvaiov' o6ev Kal Tpoirr), 
rpoiraiov' ol $e TraXatoi ATTt/cot irpoirepiGTrioGi. {In 

voce Tpoiraiov.) Here we may observe, that so 
far is the author from laying it down as a rule 
that the accentuation ought to be that approved 
by Vossius, that his rule is just the reverse; for 
his statement that these words have the accent 
on the antepenultimate, must mean that they 
have it by usage, or in other words, that they 
ought to have it. It is true, he adds as a fact, 
that the ancient Attics placed a circumflex on the 
penultimate ; but he by no means says that this 
ancient accentuation ought to prevail, or that the 
more recent is a corruption or a barbarism. That 
this comparatively less ancient pronunciation of 
the word rpoiraiov was at least five hundred years 
old at the time when the Etymologist wrote, 
which was probably about the tenth century, is 
clear from the note of Servius on the word Tro- 
phaeum {Virgil. 2En. 10. v. 542) : " Declinatio 
Latina est : unde penultima habebit accentum. 
In numero vero plurali, quia tropsea dicimus, 
nee aliquid inde mutilamus, erit Graecus accentus, 
sicut apud Grsecos, scilicet tertia syllaba a fine." 



TRISYLLABLES. V,\7 

Many similar passages might be quoted from 
Servius to show that Epiros, &c. had the Greek 
accents, though in Virgil's verse : but we must 
remember, that Servius wrote after the time, 
which, according to our definition, should be 
considered as the age of purity. As to " tropsea," 
I use him only in answer to a citation from an 
author of a still later age. We learn from Suidas 
(Invoc. Tporraiov.) more particularly, how far we 
are to go back for the " old Attics" who made 
the word Tpoiralov. He informs us that they were 
Eupolis, Cratinus, Aristophanes, and Thucydides ; 
while the later Attics, who made it rpoirawu, 
were Menander and others. Surely we may be 
content, if we speak Greek as well as Menander. 
That the circumflex accentuation of rpo-rralov was 
uncommon, may be further shown from Eusta- 

thiuS : Otj £e $ia(popa Kal aXXa ol AttikoI napa 
tt]v avaXoyov avvriQeiav rovovai, crfXov Kai e/c tov 

TpOTTCUOV, O KOiVWQ TpOTTdlOV Xey€Tai' Kal 6K TOV 

eroi/nov, Kai eprjpov' Kai ex tov ofxoioc, (to yap koivov 
opoioc) ev TrpoirepiGTraaei. (p. 258. ed. Basil.) Epri- 
/uoc irapa toIq Attikolc irpoTrapo^vverai' irapa ^e tw 
TTOirjry TrpoTrepHnrarai. (Etymol. Magn. in VOC. Epq- 

poQ.) Surely this is not an authority that the 
accent ought to be on the second syllable, but 
only that it was so in Homer's time, and had 
been since changed : but by whom ? not by the 
vulgar, not by barbarians, but by the Attics ; and 
here I presume he means the later Attics, whose 
authority must prevail, not because it is the best, 



138 TRISYLLABLES. 

but because it is the last : UpoirepiaTrarai $e Kal 
evravOa to eprjpoc, KaOa Kai aWa-^ov KaO OjxoioT^ra 

tou iroipoc. (Eustath. ad Homer, II. K. vol. i. p. 
748. ed. Basil.) Here again there is no reason to 
suppose that the change in the accentuation had 
been recent. Prudentius has the following line : — 

" Cui jejuna eremi saxa loquacious 
Exundant scatebris." — Cathemerin Hymn. v. 89. 

The most probable reason for this mistake in the 
quantity was his having always heard the word 
with an accent on the first syllable of the nomina- 
tive, and as in Latin the accent of the nominative 
passes without change to the other cases, he did 
not alter it, where a Greek would have altered it. 
He also uses idola as a dactyl {Contra Sym. 47.), 
and doubtless from the same cause. Prudentius 
wrote eight hundred years before Eustathius. 
But in truth the passages on the accent of epqfioc 
and similar ones in Eustathius, are so far from 
proving that the whole system of accentuation in 
his time had been extensively corrupted, that 
they go far to justify an inference the other way. 
Would he not have complained of such an exten- 
sive corruption in the same terms as Vossius and 
other writers have since done ? Instead of this 
he points out some particular words which in 
Homer's time had a different accent from that 
which they bore later ; from which we may infer 
that in the words of which he makes no mention, 
namely in the whole body of the Iliad and Odys- 
sey, the accents have remained the same down 



TRISYLLABLES. 139 

to his own time, and if so, probably to the time 
when Theophilus copied our manuscript, which 
was about eighty years afterwards. All the au- 
thorities cited by Vossius apply to words having 
in the penultimate a diphthong or a long vowel, 
and the question has been, whether they should 
have an acute on the antepenultimate or a cir 
cumflex on the penultimate. Vossius has cited 
no authority whatever for his arbitrary accentu- 
ation of 7roXv^aXfcoc, still less for any general 
proposition, that the " accent agreed with the 
true and natural measure of syllables," by which 
he evidently meant, that a long syllable should 
have either an acute or a circumflex. It is fur- 
ther to be observed, that all the instances cited 
are nouns, so that it may be doubted whether the 
authority of the etymologist and Eustathius ex- 
tends to verbs. Though Homer used epripoc,, it 
by no means follows that he used avopovae : and 
even with respect to nouns having a long vowel 
or a diphthong in the penultimate, it by no means 
appears that either Homer or the early Attics 
circumflexed them all. Indeed we have the au- 
thority of Eustathius that opyvia and ayvia were 

proparoxytones : Opyviav §e irpoirapo^ vtovioc r) ttcl- 
Xaia \eyei AtOiq, wairep /ecu ayviav' ol Se varepoi top 

tovov Karayovai. (p. 358.) But even conceding, for 
argument's sake, that in these cases the ancients 
were right and the moderns wrong ; that we ought 
upon these authorities to pronounce the words 
eprjfJLoc, kroifioc, and Tpoiraiov, and by analogy also 



140 TRISYLLABLES. 

to give all similar words, such as ap^wpai and 
(3ov\<ZjLiai a circumflex on the penultimate : how 
far would this overturn the general system of 
accentuation as displayed by the marks ? And 
to bring it to a matter of arithmetic, by reference 
to our manuscript of Theophilus, in how many 
instances should we have to alter the marks ? In 
six out of two hundred and eighty-one. 

Again, that npaypaTwy ought to be pronounced 
as a paroxytone, appears clearly from the passage 
already cited (p. 116) from Atheneeus, in which 
he says, that some laid the accent of XeTraan] on 
the last but one, as peyaXr], for he never would have 
used this illustration, unless it had been notorious 
that /ueyaXri was a paroxytone, and not peyaXt) as 
we sound it. The same author, in discussing the 
accent of y^epvifia, has the following remarks: Uapa 

pev toi role rpayaccnc Kai tolc, KwpiKolc 7rapo^vr6v(i)C 
aveyvu)GTai yepvlpa, k.t.X. XjOt) pev toi irpoTrapo^v- 
tovu)C irpoCpepeaOai' to. yap roiace prjpariKa avvOera 
etc "^ Xriyovra, yeyovora 7rapa toi> irapaKeifxevov rrjv 
irapaXriyovGav toi? irapaiceipevov (fyvXaaaovaiv, av re 
eyy tovtov §ia twV Suo MM Xeyopevov, papvverai' 
XeXeippai, aiy'iXup' rerpippai, oiKorpiip. iceKXeppai, 
f3ooicXe\p, irapa So^ojcXei, TLpprjc' j3e(5X epp.cn, fca-rw- 
/3Xei/>, 7ra^oa ApyeXaw tw ^Leppovriair^ ev toIc, Io\o- 
(pvetJGiv' ev &e tolq 7rXayioic ra roiavra em Trjc avrrjc 
avXXafirjc (pvXarrei tt}v raaiv. (Athen. IX. 77.) It 

appears from this last sentence, that aiyiXti//, and 
a[-yiXi7roc have the accent on the same syllable, 
and therefore not on the first, for a'lyiXnroc. with 



TRISYLLABLES. 141 

the accent thrown back to the fourth from the 
end, we know to be inadmissible. Again, on the 

accent of 2rj7r/a, he Says, Qq curiae, V 7rapa\riyovaa 
napo^vverai, wc ^iXrjfxwv laropel, Ofiouoc, Kai ravra, 

nai^ta, raivla, oihia. (vii. 123.) We shall see fur- 
ther, from a passage of Dionysius, that apfivXric 
had the accent on the penultimate. 

Aristotle, in treating of the different modes by 
which sophisms or ambiguities may be intro- 
duced into language, makes brief mention of 
accent as one of these modes, saying at the same 
time, that such an ambiguity cannot easily arise 
in communications by word of mouth. One of his 
commentators, Alexander (usually called Aphro- 
disiensis, from his birth-place), in illustration of 

this passage, cites a law, Eraipa \pv(Jia ei (j)opoirj } 

<$Yuio<na earu). What was to be confiscated? the 
necklace or the lady ? a point of some interest 
this to a Greek lord of the treasury. Now, the 
law written without marks leaves it uncertain 
whether the word is to be considered as Sripoma, 
the feminine singular, agreeing with eraipa, or 
c^ioo-m the neuter plural agreeing with \pvala : 
and if any one were to read the words aloud after 
our English manner, he would leave it equally 
uncertain ; because he would pay no attention to 
the quantity of the last syllable, but finding the 
penultimate short, and therefore according to his 
canon incapable of receiving the accent, he would 
still call it &7juo<na, even though he considered it 
as the feminine singular. But Alexander's ex- 



142 TRISYLLABLES. 

pressions prove that such a pronunciation would 

be wrong : Ei> /uev o/miXia Kal §ia\e%ei ovk cnrarricyei 
7TOT6 o Xeyivv, EtchjOci, y^pvala ei <popoir) } BrjfxoaLa ecrrw. 
eiArj7TTai yap o Xeyojv, irapol^vTOVuyc tov Xoyov e£e- 
veyKuv, 7] rvyov Kai irpoirapo^VTOVwc,' /ecu ovk av cro- 
(piaairo wore tov rjKpoapevov, vvv fxev 7rapo^vr6v(t)C 
Xeyuv, vvv $e etc Trpoirapo^vrova fxeraXafji^aviov' ana^ 
yap eipriKtoc eaii/nave to eavrov fiovXev/na. (Alexand 

inAristot. Sophist. Elench.ip. 20. ed. Aid.) Nothing 
can be clearer, than that there were two different 
ways of pronouncing the word, according to the 
signification attached to it by the speaker, and 
that one of these ways was to make oViocr/a a 
paroxytone ; so that by pronouncing it in that 
way, he at once put an end to any ambiguity as to 
the construction which he put upon it. 

I have attempted to show that our reading of 
the passage in St. Luke ought to be according 
to the marks evinced in the manuscript of Theo- 
philus. Generally the same authorities which 
induce us to pronounce eSo£e and TrpayfiaTuv, 
ought by analogy to lead us to apply the accents 
to the greater part of the words in the manu- 
script, according to the marks. I say the greater 
part, because a few of the marks show an accen- 
tuation different from that which we should have 
assigned them. The same authorities which 
would show that we ought to say wp ay /mar tov would 
make us say avara^aaOai, and the reasoning 
which makes eo\>£e right would make /caTecr/ceua- 
apkvov wrong. It becomes necessary therefore to 



TRISYLLABLES. 143 

consider the exceptions to the rule above laid 
down as to the accents of trisyllables. We have 
seen that there are in the twenty verses of the ma- 
nuscript fifty trisyllables (in which term are com- 
prehended all words of more than two syllables) , 
with the last syllable long, of which thirty-six 
have the mark on the penultimate. The remain- 
ing fourteen have it on the antepenultimate. Of 
these, eight ending in AI are oblique tenses of 
verbs, like avara^aaOai, and six ending in 01 are 
nominatives plural, like yevopevoi. It is true 
that we are told by grammarians, that in such 
cases the final diphthong is short ; but it seems 
that they have no other reason for this, than that 
of finding the mark where they do. They would 
therefore tell us that the mark is on the antepe- 
nultimate of avaTa%a<j9ai, because the final AT is 
short, and AI must be short, because the mark 
is on the antepenultimate. But this reasoning in 
a circle is silenced by our finding that no poet has 
ever used these syllables as short before a conso- 
nant ; there being no instance of such an ending 
to a verse, as 

7r€ideardat yepovri, 

or, 

av6pio7TOL yevovro. 

It is true that the final AI and 01 are often made 
short before a vowel ; as, 

deaden airoiva. — //. A. 23. 
Eic\ay£,av & ctp' oiarol ew uj^hov ^wojuevoio. — Ibid, 46. 

but so sometimes are the other diphthongs, and 



144 TRISYLLABLES. 

the long vowels. Here again however we fail not 
to find authority for our exceptions, as we have 
before done for our rules. Apollonius speaking 
of the singular article : Ore yap cpaftev, b Apl- 

Gxapyjoc,, irpoc, to voov/nevov yevoc, to apOpov irapaTi- 
Oe/nev' ot€ oe, ovtio, to ApiuTapyoi Trpoirapo^vveTcii, 
to Ap'iGTdpyoi etc 01 X?7yet, TrpoQTO bvo/ua tt\c (JHovrjc 

<j)a/dev. (Syntax, i. 4.) Apollonius would never 
have brought such an example as this, viz. the 
word ApiGTapyoi is a proparoxytone, had it not 
been a thing taken for granted, and as certainly 
known, as that the word AplaTapyoi ended in 01. 
Dr. Gaily enumerates among the incongruities, 
as he is pleased to consider them, of the accents 
as evinced by the marks, that many words have 
an acute upon the antepenultimate, though the 
last is long ; of these there are four classes :— 

1 . The Ionic genitive cases in EQ for OY, as 

Aiveieu). 

2. The Attic genitive cases of contracts in IE 

and I, as ocpewc, bcpewv' aivrfireojCj aivr)Treu)v. 

3. Nouns in QE and QN, which do not increase 
in the genitive case, as euyewc, avioyewv. 

4. The Compounds of yeXwc, as KarayeXwQ. 

(p. 55.) 

I have not found any explanation of these in- 
stances of exception from the general rule. In 
the absence of positive authority, I should con- 
jecture, that in the most ancient form of all these 
words the last syllable was short, and the accent 
was formed accordingly, that the old genitive of 



TRISYLLABLES. 145 

o(j>ic t for instance, was ofyioc,, and that though a 
later usage prevailed so far as to alter the quan- 
tity of the last syllable, it was not strong enough 
to disturb the accent to which men's ears had 
been accustomed. 

Again, of the forty-one trisyllables having the 
last short, there are four which have the mark 
on the last syllable but one ; namely, Tcapi\Ko- 

\ov0r}KOTi, 7TjOoj3e/3rjKOTec, 7r^oj3ej3^/cvia, KaraaKeva- 

afikvov. Perhaps the solution of this difficulty 
is to be found in the passage of Herodian al- 
ready cited (p. 115), that participles have a 
peculiar accentuation (t&m rovovvrai), to distin- 
guish them from adjectives. Apollonius says 
that the participle aweXi^aap.evoi, when de- 
prived of the 2, throws back the accent, (avay- 
KalioQ ave(3i(3ale rov rovov. De Adverb. Bekker. 
Anecdot. Grcec. p. 549.) This shows the accent 
must have been on the penultimate, for no word 
can throw the accent further back than the ante- 
penultimate : OvTapevoc' Trpoirapw^vvero Se vtto 
A^piarap^ov $ia tov yjapaKTripa. (E/cXoyai, /c. t. X. in 
the ' Qriaavpoc,' k. t. X. of Aldus, p. 119.) If 
ovrcLfxevoQ must, under all circumstances, be a 
proparoxytone, why this remark, that Aristarchus 
made it so for a special reason ? I do not indeed 
understand the reason : but 1 find no difficulty 
in supposing that Aristarchus knew more of the 
matter than I do. 

I found it convenient at the outset to assume, 
that the marks were intended to serve as guides 

L 



146 TRISYLLABLES. 

in laying the accent, till some other theory should 
be supported by probable evidence. But the va- 
rious passages which have been cited as to the 
accents of words and classes of words, seem, 
when duly considered, to turn this assumption 
into a very strong demonstration. The marks 
in manuscripts correspond so exactly with the ac- 
cents described by the grammarians, as to leave 
no room to doubt that the former must represent 
the latter. Atheneeus tells us, that Ka\ri was an 
oxytone, and jueyaXr} a paroxytone, and we accord- 
ingly find kqXi) marked on the last syllable, and 
peyaXr} on the last but one ; and so of all the 
rest. Besides this agreement of the mark of 
each of these words with the accent which the 
grammarians have assigned to it, we may ob- 
serve, in the manner of marking, a compliance 
with the canons laid down by them in two par- 
ticulars : 

First, they teach us that each word has one 
accent, that is one acute, and only one : and 
accordingly we find a mark, and no more than 
one, over each word. This too is an additional 
proof that the office of the mark has no reference 
to quantity : because we nowhere find any canon 
that each word has only one long syllable, or only 
one short syllable, nor could any such proposition 
have been advanced without evident absurdity. 

Secondly, the grammarians lay it down that 
the accent is not to be carried back further than 
the last syllable but two ; and accordingly the 



TRISYLLABLES. 147 

marks are always contained, even in those long 
compound words with which the Greek language 
abounds, within the compass of the three last 
syllables. All this excludes the supposition of ig- 
norance, or carelessness, or indifference in placing 
the marks, and affords us the strongest assurance 
that they have been applied in compliance with 
good reasons and paramount authority, that they 
are intended to represent a living and actual 
pronunciation, and that the particular modifica- 
tion of pronouncing to which they point, is the 
accent, or in other words, the exertion of the 
voice in raising syllables. 



148 



CHAPTER IV. 

1. QUANTITY. 2. QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 3. 

GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 4. PRINCIPLES 

OF QUANTITY. 5. MODE OF EXPRESSING QUANTITY IN COM- 
MON DISCOURSE. 6. IN ORATORY.- — 7. IN POETRY. 8. OUR 

PRONUNCIATION VIOLATES QUANTITY. 

QUANTITY. 

1 . I think the various passages which have been 
cited from authors who wrote on the Greek lan- 
guage in the state of its purity and perfection, 
ought to be sufficient to justify us in following 
the marks generally where we find them to agree 
with these authorities : and more particularly to 
bring the argument to the point on which I have 
found it convenient to place it, I think I have 
made out that we ought to read the first chapter 
of St. Luke according to the manuscript of The- 
ophilus : and here I might, without any gross 
inconsistency, leave the question. All that I 
have hitherto attempted to make out is, that the 
marks ought to be followed in reading Greek 
prose. To say that such a pronunciation would 
spoil the quantity of Greek verse, is by no means 
a complete refutation of the arguments ; because 
it may still be true, that accent, or quantity, or 



QUANTITY. 149 

both, may be different in prose and in verse. 
Vossius indeed directly asserts this, "Omnino 
necesse est aliter in prosa, aliter in carmine so- 
nuisse vocabula." {Be PoematumCantu, &c.p.32.) 
And Primatt, though a stout defender of the 
reading according to the marks, limits such read- 
ing to prose, on the ground that it cannot be 
admitted in verse, being inconsistent with quan- 
tity. The necessity for this distinction, however, 
seems chiefly founded on the proposition, that 
the accent gives time or extension to the syllable 
on which it falls ; and if that proposition be dis- 
proved, falls with it. I know of no passage in 
any ancient writer, in which such a distinction 
is asserted, nor any from which it can be inferred, 
except two words of Aristotle, which I think 
admit of an easy explanation in another sense. 

The passage is as follows : Ylapa Se Tr)i> irpoaojllav 
ev jxev toic, avev ypa<pric SiaXeKTiKolc ov paSiov 7roirj(rai 
\oyov, ev ce role yeypafijuievoiQ Kai 7rotr^uacri fxaWov' 
olov f Kat rov OjjLY]pov kvioi ciopQovvTai irpof, tovq eXey- 
yovrac, wc aroirwc eijor/zcora, to /mev ov Karairvderai 
o/i]3jOw* Xvovvi yap avro ry TrpoGtoSia, Xeyovrec to ov 
o^vrepov' Ka\ to irepi to evvwviov tov Ayafxepvovoc, 
on ovk avTOQ o Zeuq e\irev, §i$ojiev &e 01 evyoc, apeadai, 
aXXa t(j> evvrrviu) evereXXero SiSovai* Ta fxev ovv 
roiavra irapa rr\v irpocroySiav earlv. (Sophist. Elench. 

c. 4.) Upon which his commentator Alexander 
Aphrodisiensis says : TlepirTOG toVoc twv wept rrjv 

Xe^iv a o(j)i(T /mar (*>v o 7repi rr\v irpoGwdiav ecmv' oq tig ev 
pev roLQ SiaXeKTiKolc Xoyoic role /m) yeypa/nfAevoic 



150 QUANTITY. 

a\\a Xeyopevoic ov paSiuc, yiyverai, ev $e role, ye- 
ypapf.ie.voic, SinAe/crtKoTc Aoyoic Kai to?c O^t^oi/coTc 
Trou'i/uani Svvcltcli yeveaOai. (P. 20. ed. Aid.) He 

then proceeds to give as an illustration the am- 
biguity which arises on the word ^poaia, which 
has already been cited (p. 141). 

Primatt has, from these two words, kq\ iroinpa ai, 
drawn the conclusion, that such a fallacy might 
take place in a poem even viva voce : the only 
assignable reason for which is, as he infers, that 
in reading verse the quantity prevails. — Accentus 
Redivivi : or a Defence of an Accented Pronunci- 
ation of Greek Prose, showing it to be conform- 
able to all Antiquity, &c, by W. Primatt, M.A. 
Camb. 1764, pref. p. xiv. But the true meaning 
of the author is to be collected from the examples 
which he gives, and seems to be merely that 
poetry would give greater facility than prose for 
such a sophism. The whole chapter treats of 
the various kinds of sophisms or rhetorical sub- 
terfuges, by which a crafty speaker or writer, 
after stating a proposition so as to be understood 
in one sense, leaves himself an opening to turn 
round afterwards upon his adversary and explain 
it in another- After treating of four other kinds, 
he briefly touches on the accentual sophism, of 
which he says,, that it is not easily made in com- 
mon discourse, but in written prose it may, and 
still more easily in poetry, for so his very concise 
words may be fairly translated. Of prose he 
gives no example ; an omission which his com- 



QUANTITY. 151 

mentator supplies by showing how " Sripoaia" a 
word constantly occurring in common talk, might 
have two different meanings according to the 
accent, so that a lawyer w T ho had been at first 
understood to have stated in writing that a neck- 
lace should be confiscated, might afterwards 
creep out of this obvious meaning, and argue 
that if the word were read as it ought to be, the 
meaning would be, that the woman who had worn 
it, should be sold for a slave. But why, it will 
be asked, is it easier to make such a fallacy in 
poetry than in prose ? For this obvious reason, 
that in poetry, and particularly Homer's poetry, 
of which alone Alexander seems to understand 
it, many words were coined, the true meaning of 
which could be collected from the accent alone, 
as they were spelt like other words, which in 
simple prose bore a different signification. And 
from the instances given, and particularly the se- 
cond, on which Primatt seems to rely, we shall 
see the force of this construction ; always bearing 
in mind the point which Aristotle had in view, 
namely, the power of receding from what seems 
an obvious meaning, and substituting another. 
Jupiter, being won by Thetis to lure Agamemnon 
to defeat, sends a lying dream to persuade him 
that victory is certain : — 

Botox' Wi, ov\e Oveipe, Ooas enl vrjas A^atwv. 
EA0wv els KXiffirjv AyafAe/xvoi'os Arpe'/'ckxo, 
Udvra paV arpeneios ayopevefiep, ojs CTriTeWio' 
QuprjZai e KeXeve Kaprj Ko/joiovrns A^aiovs 



152 QUANTITY. 

HaiffvSifj' vvv yap net' e\oi 7ro\tv evpvdyviav 
Tpuiiov' ov yap er aju0t$ OXvfnria £wyuar' e\ovTes 
Adavaroi typa^oi'TaC eireyvufxipev yap cnravTas 
Hprj XiaffOfJievrj' £/£ojuev £e oi evxos apeaQai. 

Horn. II. B. 8. 

It is true that in our modern editions we do 
not find these last words, but instead of them, 

Tpueaai Be jcijSe' e^Trrai, but the words which 

Aristotle quotes, were no doubt in the received 
editions of his time, and probably in the famous 
one which always lay under the pillow of his 
immortal pupil. Now the obvious meaning of 

SiSo/Liev $e oi evy^oQ apeaOai Was, " We, the gods, 

give to him to gain glory." Some of Homer's 
readers, shocked at finding a direct falsehood 
placed in Jupiter's mouth, tried to set the poet 
right {SiopOovoOai) by changing the accent, and 
contending that it ought to be read SiSopev, which 
would be the iEolic form of the infinitive, and, 
understanding ^pr), would have an imperative 
sense: "Do you, Dream, give him to gain 
glory," that is, do you use such illusions as 
you please to make him think he has victory in 
his grasp. Now this was a sophism or sub- 
terfuge which, had the proposition been stated 
in prose, could have been of no avail to the 
writer or his defenders. AiSo/ueu in prose can 
mean nothing else but "we give:" in vain 
you try to escape by alleging that you in- 
tended it for the infinitive mood : the reply would 
be, that in that case you ought to have said 



QUANTITY. 153 

Sovvai or SiSovai. When we have so obvious a 
mode of explaining the author's meaning, it 
surely cannot be safe to infer from two words that 
poetry was read with different accents from prose, 
and particularly when we have precise authori- 
ties, and among them Quinctilian's, the other 
way. 

That the accents were the same in verse as in 
prose seems highly probable from the reason of 
the thing. Prose, or in other words language, 
must have preceded poetry, and must have had 
a fixed accentuation. Then all the poet had to 
do was, to take the language as he found it, only 
confining it in certain metre, and perhaps assist- 
ing it by music. It is surely in the highest de- 
gree improbable that the earliest poets should 
have systematically applied different accents to 
the words of their language from those used in 
common discourse, or that the simple music 
which was probably their accompaniment, should 
have had the power of drowning or annihila- 
ting the accents. I say simple music, because I 
admit that the scientific and elaborate music, to 
which lyrical, and particularly choral, poetry was 
set in later times, had sometimes the effect of mer- 
ging the accents. And unless the earliest poets 
changed the accents, we are at a loss to fix upon 
any of their successors who had the boldness to 
make such an innovation. Further, the passage 
of Quinctilian above cited (p. 107), in which he 
says that the Roman poets placed Greek nouns 



154 QUANTITY. 

in their verses, in order to improve their harmony 
by the variety of the accent, is a proof that that 
variety cannot be restricted to prose. We know 
that the quantity of Greek and Latin verses was 
the same. In any part of a verse therefore 
where a Latin noun could be used, any Creek 
noun, to be introduced instead of it, must have 
the same quantity. Take as an instance VirgiFs 
line, beginning " Philly rides Chiron." Write 
these words in Greek, QiWvpiSriG Xeipwv ; it is 
clear that the quantity remains the same. If then 
the accent with which ^iXXvpl^c would be pro- 
nounced in prose, does not also attach to it in 
verse, but it is still tobe called QiXXvpiSnc, where is 
the variety ? A passage in Terentianus Maurus, 
showing that ^loKpar-qv may stand in the same 
place of a verse as Appulos, though different in 
accent, will be more particularly adverted to in 
treating of the arsis and thesis. Primatt cites 
Servius on the accent of Simois (Virg. JEneid 
i. 104.) : — " Nomen hoc integrum ad nos transiit, 
unde suo accentu profertur (sc. S^ioejc) ; nam si 
esset Latinum, in antepenultima haberet accen- 
tum, quia secunda a fine brevis." He then goes 
on : "A like remark he has upon the word Peri- 
phas (Mneid, ii. 476). Una ingens Periphas. His 
note upon Periphas is, Ultima accentum non 
habet, ne fosmininum sit ; nee tertia a fine, quia 
novissima longa est ; ergo RI habebit accentum : 
and yet there could be no doubt either about the 
quantity of the penultimate of this word, or the 



QUANTITY. 155 

pronunciation of it in verse ; but for all this, the 
prose pronunciation, we are told, was Periphas, 
because the last syllable was long" (p. 91). Where 
are we told so ? there is nothing in the passage 
which either directly or indirectly restricts the 
expressions of Servius to prose; but, on the con- 
trary, every reason to suppose he meant to apply 
it to verse. It might be a very useful part of 
the labour of an annotator to point out to a 
scholar where the accent should be laid in reading 
aloud a given word, and particularly where such 
accent was contrary to what the analogy of his 
own language would have led him to expect. 
But what purpose could it answer to tell the reader 
of Virgil, that if ever he happened to meet with 
the word Periphas in prose, he ought to make it 
a paroxytone ? Surely the obvious meaning of 
" Rl habebit accentum" is, that it shall have the 
accent in reading the particular verse under con- 
sideration. These remarks on Simois and Peri- 
phas, though found in our books, and I presume 
in the manuscripts too, in Roman characters, 
serve to confirm what Quinctilian says of the 
Latin poets using Greek nouns in their verses, 
notwithstanding Dr. Gally's doubt whether any 
of them did so : and further, that though he 
mentions oxy tones as being so used, he only men- 
tions them by way of example, without meaning 
to restrict his observations to them. A very 
strong inference to the same effect may be drawn 
from the various manuscripts of Greek poems, 



156 QUANTITY. 

in which the marks are invariably the same as 
those over prose works. If the accents were not 
to be observed in verse, why take the trouble of 
marking them ? Surely, if a different manner of 
laying the accent had prevailed in poetry, the 
marks of poetical works would either have been 
omitted, or placed over the proper syllables ; in 
which case they would have been of more service 
to the unlearned reader than even in prose works. 
And it may be observed, that if there had been 
so complete a difference between the accentuation 
of prose and verse, we might have expected that 
some of the many critics who have written on the 
subject would have pointed out this difference, 
and the reasons for it. But I am not aware of 
any writer older than Isaac Vossius, who has 
directly propounded this doctrine, nor of any 
passage of an ancient writer, from which such an 
inference can fairly be drawn. On the contrary,, 
the old grammarians, when giving rules for ac- 
cents, seem to fix indiscriminately on words in 
prose and words in verse to illustrate them. 
Witness what has been cited from Apollonius as 
to the avafiipaafxoQ of the accent in compound 
verbs (p. 134), where, among his instances, he 
places Neo-Twp S' oloc, ecjyiZe. Surely he would not 
have done this if Primatt's theory had been true, 
that though it may be efyiie in prose, it must be 
ecplle in verse. Primatt's theory ought further 
to be suspected from the circumstance of its 
being confined to Greek. Considering the simi- 



QUANTITY. 157 

larity between the rhythm of Greek and Latin 
verse, it would be probable that any quality in 
the ordinary accent which made it unfit for poetic 
modulation, would make it equally unfit in one 
language as in the other. But according to 
Primatt, the Latin had the remarkable felicity 
of being " read according to quantity," so that 
it was suited to the various metres which it bor- 
rowed from the Greek ; while the Greeks, who 
invented these metres themselves, were obliged 
to alter their language to fit them. 

Admitting therefore that the accentuation which 
we affix to npajfjiaru)^ and e'Sof ev in prose must still 
attach to them in verse, I shall endeavour to show 
that the objections to which this admission gives 
rise, though specious, are not insuperable ; and 
that in poetry, as in prose, the accents may be laid 
according to the marks without a violation of the 
quantity. All the objections against reading 
Greek according to the marks, however variously 
stated, do in truth resolve themselves into one, 
namely, that such reading would violate quantity. 
Had our education been confined to prose, no 
one would have objected to the marks : the dis- 
inclination to pronounce Trpay^anov in Saint Luke 
is, that we shall be obliged to do the same in 
Euripides. I contend that in Euripides also 
7J7>ay/iaTwi>, though a Cretic foot, as it unques- 
tionably is, ought still to be pronounced accord- 
ing to the mark ; and to those who will not so 
pronounce it, I respectfully put the question, 



158 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

why its being a Cretic necessarily makes it a 
proparoxytone ? And I use the term " respect- 
fully" with perfect sincerity, as I am aware that 
a great majority of the most learned men in 
England, to say nothing of other countries, 
would pronounce this word with the accent on 
the first syllable, and if asked for the reason, 
would answer, because the second is short. All 
that I beg of my readers is, that they do not take 
it for granted ; but give themselves the trouble to 
consider, whether this effect upon the accent 
follows from the quantity, and if it does, for 
what reasons. I contend : First, that a short 
syllable may have an accent ; and Secondly, that 
the middle of a trisyllable, though short, may 
have an accent. They who negative the first 
proposition, must maintain that accent and quan- 
tity necessarily coincide. They who negative 
the second, must maintain, either that accent 
and quantity coincide, or that Greek trisyllables 
are to be accented like Latin. The two propo- 
sitions, though often carelessly confounded, stand 
upon perfectly different grounds ; the first mainly 
depending on principles common to all languages, 
and the second upon arbitrary usage, in which 
perhaps no two languages agree. 

QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

2. Let us first consider whether accent and 
quantity are necessarily coincident, that is, whe- 
ther an accented syllable, as such, must be long, 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 159 

and an unaccented syllable, as such, must be 
short. I use the term " coincident," because no 
writer, I think, has gone the length of contend- 
ing that accent and quantity are strictly one and 
the same thing : indeed a moments consideration 
must suffice to convince any one, that to raise a 
note or syllable, and to lengthen it, are different 
actions, which do not necessarily subsist toge- 
ther. Every nation must have both accent and 
quantity. To say nothing of the difference of 
time which usage would assign to different vowels, 
syllables must take more or less time in the pro- 
nunciation, accordingly as they are composed of 
more or fewer consonants. On the other hand, 
that language, to be intelligible, must have some 
syllables raised in sound higher than others, will 
not he denied ; and we come to the simple ques- 
tion, whether, in the Greek language, the same 
syllables which are raised, must also take a long 
time to pronounce. It is generally conceded, 
that a word can have only one acute accent ; but 
whether this be true or not with regard to other 
languages, it has been shown (p. 125) to be true 
in Greek. If therefore accent and quantity were 
necessarily coincident, it would be impossible 
that a word could have two long syllables. How 
can we suppose avdpa£ to have been pronounced? 
Whether you place the accent on the first or the 
second syllable, you leave the other syllable es- 
sentially long, because it must take a long time 
to pronounce it intelligibly. Before it was settled 



160 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

whether uvQpa% was a spondee or a pyrrhic, a 
trochee or an iambic, and before these terms were 
even invented, it must have had two long syl- 
lables, of which one only had an accent. Again 
it has been shown (p. 104) that every word, with 
very few exceptions, must have an accent. How 
are we to suppose that the Greeks pronounced 
o$oc ? It must have had an accent, and that 
accent must have been on a short syllable. What 
becomes of the doctrine, that accent and quantity 
are coincident ? Or how, if we assume that 
proposition, can we escape the conclusion, that 
avOpwirtov must have three accents, and avaXeyo- 
/mevov none at all ? 

I now beg the reader to turn back to the pas- 
sage already cited from Dionysius (p. 28) as to 
the difference between the pronunciation of the 
long and the short vowels. The manner of 
giving their due length to the former is by an 
" extended and continuous stream of the breath." 
So Aristides Quintilianus : Tuv p.ev ovv tyiovr&Twv , 

rajuiev eXa^iaro) y^povw irpoeveyQrivai ^vvafxeva^payjea 
Xeyerai' ra §' e% avayKr)G /iei£oi>i, fxaKpa. (I)e MusiCd. 

lib. i. p. 44. ed. Meibom.) It is the length of 
time during which this action is continued which 
constitutes quantity, which is on this account 
called xpovoc.. Accent, on the contrary (tovoc), is 
the stress or exertion of the voice in raising a 
syllable, or giving it a higher or more intense 
note. And, in truth, accent is so far from being 
the same thing with quantity, that it necessarily 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 161 

precedes it, because we must first determine at 
what height of the voice we will pitch a note or 
syllable, before we can decide how long we will 
dwell upon it. Unless it be true in music, that 
a high note must be longer than a low note, it is 
not true in common discourse ; indeed it is evi- 
dent that we have the power of dwelling a longer 
time upon one syllable than upon the others 
near it, without any reference to the height at 
which we pitch it, which is only saying in other 
words, that we may give it a long time without 
giving it an acute accent. Foster illustrates this 
with his usual felicity : — "Notwithstanding the 
reluctance of Vossius, Henninius, and thousands 
after them, to admit the acute as compatible with 
a short time, if I could have them near me with 
a flute in my hand, or rather with an organ be- 
fore us, I would engage to convince them of the 
consistency of these two. I would take any two 
keys next to each other, one of which would con- 
sequently give a sound lower than the other: 
suppose the word aeiSe before us, or apovpav, both 
which words Vossius would circumflex on the 
penultimate, instead of giving an acute to the 
first, according to our present marks : I would 
conformably to these marks just touch the higher 
key for the initial a, and take my finger off im- 
mediately, and then touch the lower key, on 
which I would dwell longer than I did on the 
higher, and that would give me a grave, with a 
long time for the syllable EI ; the same lower 

M 



162 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

key I would just touch again and instantly leave 
it, which would give me a grave with a short 
time for AE ; aeiSe." (p. 181.) Primatt indeed 
finds fault with the argument drawn from this 
analogy: — " However music and grammar may 
have several names in common, as Trpoaa)^ia,r6voc, 
tcktic, emTacnc, &c, yet they by no means bear 
the same signification in one and the other ; and 
therefore to argue from what may be done in 
music to what is the case in grammar, is a very 
fallacious way of reasoning." (pref. xi.) But it 
is to be observed, that the general theory of the 
difference between accent or elevation, and quan- 
tity or time, which Foster illustrates by the or- 
gan, does not depend upon the particular meaning 
of any Greek words, but upon such an analogy 
between music and common discourse as might 
be explained in any language, and to any people 
conversant with the simplest elements of music. 
Neither does Foster predicate generally, that what 
is true in music is true in grammar ; but only that 
in each a low note may be made longer than a 
high one. If Foster is to be censured for such 
an analogy between accent and music, he must 
share the blame with Cicero, who draws the same 
analogy between common discourse and singing : 
— " Mira est enim natura vocis : cujus quidem e 
tribus omnino sonis, inflexo, acuto, gravi, tanta 
sit et tam suavis varietas perfecta in cantibus : 
est autem in dicendo etiatn quidam cantus ob- 
scurior." (De Orat. 17.) 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 163 

Dionysius expressly says, that the difference 
between discourse and music consists not in qua- 
lity but only in degree, the compass of the voice 
being less in the former than in the latter. As the 
passage serves admirably to illustrate the distinc- 
tion between accent and quantity, and the nature 
of each, I shall translate the whole of it. 

" Of those things which tend to make a compo- 
sition pleasing and forcible, the most important 
and the most striking are four; namely, tone, 
rhythm, variety, and that which w r aits upon the 
other three — propriety. Under the head of what 
is pleasing I class beauty, and grace, and fluency, 
and sweetness, and naturalness, and qualities of 
the same nature. Under the head of what is for- 
cible, I class grandeur, and weight, and solemnity, 
and dignity, and naturalness, and similar quali- 
ties ; for these seem to me the most important and 
leading branches under each of the two heads. 
These are in truth the objects, and I think I may 
say the only objects, of those who have taken pains 
in the composition of metre, or music, or prose. 
Many and excellent are the authors who have 
succeeded in each and in both kinds of compo- 
sition : but I have not time at present to produce 
particular examples of each, for fear of being too 
diffuse on this part of my subject ; and besides, 
should it be thought right to mention any of 
them, and should we require instances by way of 
illustration, there w T ill be a fitter opportunity 
when I describe the characters of harmony. What 

m 2 



164 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

I have said on the subject must suffice for the 
present. And now to pursue the path on which 
I set out, I return to the distinction which I 
have drawn between pleasing and forcible com- 
position. 

" I have said that the ear is pleased, first by 
tone, secondly by rhythm, thirdly by variety, 
and in addition to all these by propriety. And 
for a proof that I am right I appeal to experience, 
which is in accordance with the common feelings 
of mankind. For who is there who is not influ- 
enced and charmed by one kind of melody, with- 
out any such feeling for another ? or who is not 
soothed by one rhythm, and disgusted with an- 
other? I myself have observed in crowded theatres, 
filled with a mixed and unrefined multitude, how 
naturally we all fall in with correctness in tone 
and rhythm. I have seen a harper of merit and 
reputation hissed by the audience when he has 
touched one string out of tune ; and the same 
thing has happened to a flute-player, however 
well he handled his instrument, if from any 
failure, either in the manner of his blowing, or 
in the proper disposition of his lips, he produces 
a harsh or discordant note ; and yet if you were 
to ask any one of them all to take the instrument 
and do that himself which he is criticizing in the 
artist, he would not be able : why ? because the 
one is the result of science, which is shared 
among few ; and the other of sensation, which 
nature has bestowed upon all. And so of rhythm : 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 165 

I have seen the whole audience disgusted and 
indignant when a performer has made a beat, or 
a movement, or a note out of time, and so spoiled 
the rhythm. And as what is correct in tone and 
rhythm has this power of delighting and sooth- 
ing, so also variety and propriety have the same 
charm and the same influence ; where they are 
produced in perfection they please, and where 
they fail, they disgust us. Can there be a ques- 
tion of it? Take as an instance instrumental 
music, or charm in singing, or elegance in dan- 
cing, correct in every other respect, but deficient 
in fitting variety, or wanting due propriety : we 
are at once tired of it, and its not being adapted 
to the subject takes away all our pleasure in it. 
And here I am using an illustration by no means 
foreign to the subject ; for the science of prose 
composition is in some sort musical, differing 
from that of vocal and instrumental music rather 
in degree than in quality : for here too the words 
possess tone, and rhythm, and variety, and pro- 
priety ; so that in this also the ear is charmed by 
tone, and soothed by rhythm, and seeks for va- 
riety, but above all desires propriety, the only 
difference being the degree in which these qua- 
lities subsist. Now the tone or modulation of 
common discourse is measured as nearly as can 
be by one interval, which is called the diapente, 
and is not heightened to an acute beyond three 
tones and a half, nor depressed to a grave beyond 
the same compass : not that every word in a 



166 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

single member of a sentence is uttered with the 
same accent, but one with an acute, another with 
a grave, another with both. Of those which 
have both, some have the grave combined in the 
same syllable with the acute, and these we call 
circumflex ; others again have them separate in 
their respective places, each preserving its own 
nature. And in disyllables there is no middle 
space of acuteness or gravity ; but in polysylla- 
bles of whatever length, there is, among many 
grave, only one syllable which has the acute 
accent. But instrumental and vocal music has 
more intervals, not merely the diapente, but be- 
ginning with the diapason, it extends to the 
diapente, and the diatessaron, and the diatonon, 
and the hemitonion, and some think they can 
even distinguish it as far as the diesis. And it 
makes the words subservient to the music, and 
not the music to the words, as is clear from many 
examples, and particularly from the air, which 
Euripides in the Orestes puts into the mouth of 
Electra, where she addresses the chorus : — 

27ya, mya, Xevicov "tyvos ap(3v\r)s 
Tidelre, /*/) KTVKeiTe. 

A7ro7rp6(3ar eKela cl-k oxpodi Kolras. 

For here the a7ya, alya \evKov is set to one note, 
though each of the three words has both acute 
and grave accents. And the apftvXvc has the 
third syllable set to the same note as the middle 
one, though it is impossible that a single word 
can have two acute accents. In ridelre the 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 167 

first becomes graver, and the two next acute 
and set to the same note. In Krvirelre the cir- 
cumflex is annihilated, for the two syllables are 
pronounced with the same accent. And lastly 
the aTTOTrpoflare has not the acute accent on its 
middle syllable, but the accent of the third syl- 
lable^ brought down to the fourth. 

"And the same remark applies also to rhythm; 
for ordinary discourse never forces nor displaces 
the times either of a noun or a verb, but preserves 
the natural quantity of long and short syllables 
just as it found them. But rhythm and music 
change them, sometimes by adding to them, 
sometimes by taking away from them ; so as 
often to make them exactly contrary to what 
they were. For they do not make the times 
subservient to the syllables, but the syllables to 
the times." (xi. 70.) 

There are particular expressions in this pas- 
sage which it is difficult to understand, and par- 
ticularly for those who are ignorant of music : 
but the result of the whole, as far as regards 
the present question, is very clear : namely, that 
there is a marked distinction between ^ueXoc, or 
tone, which has to do with acuteness, and rhythm, 
which has to do with time. And the same author, 
in the next section, expresses the same distinc- 
tion, though more concisely, yet with no less 
clearness, laying it down among the rules of com- 
position: Mi/tc bXiyoavWafia 7roXAu e%rjc Xapfiaveiv 
(K07TT€rai yap rj aKpoaaic), p.r]re iroXvavWapa irXeiu) 



168 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

twi' iKavivv, /iiri$e Stj ofioiorova Trap OfxoiOTOVotc, pi/ce 
onoioy^pova ~ap o/noio^povoic. (xii. 82.) 

Omnium longitudinum et brevitatum in sonis, 
sicut acutarum graviumque vocum judicium natu- 
rain auribus nostris collocavit. {Cic.De Or at. 51.) 

Tavra £e $ia(pepei ayjipacri re tow o-w/ttaroc, Kai 
tottoic, kgi oacrvTifTt Kai \Ii\6tt}ti, Kai Lii]Kei Kai ppa- 
yvT-qri, en $e Kai otv-i^ri teal f3api)TT}-i, Kai rw^iecrw. 

(Aristot. Poet. s. 34.) 

^vL,vyovai yap at (poovai Kara re ttoiotiito tuv 
G-oiyjEiwv , Kai Kara 77ocfot?7— a tu)v <JvWajD(s)v, Kai 
(pa'iverai oti Kai Kara y^povov Kai Taaiv. {ApoIlO- 

nius, ii. 5- p. 105.) 

Nam prima est observatio recte pronuntiandi, 
eequalitas, ne sermo subsultet imparibus spatiis ac 
sonis, miscens longa brevibus, gravia acutis, elata 
submissis. (Quinctil. xi. 3. 43.) 

Sextus, after contending that the long vowels 
differ so much from the short, that the real num- 
ber of vowels may be considered as ten rather than 
seven, goes on by parity of reasoning to show that a 
difference in accent or spirit would make a further 
distinction between them : AAA' e-el ov cvo p.6vov 

v-ei\ii<pnaw elvai —pocrwciac ypa/m/ua-iKtJV —aitec, ti]v 
re f.iaKpav Kai fipay^elav, aWa Kai o^elav, fiapeiav, 
7repi<J7Tii)iJ,€VT]i', cacreiav, \l/i\i}v' eKavrov twi 1 vrrodebeiy- 
[Aevujv (pwvaevTwv eyjov -iva rovrcor Kar iciav tt/ocxxw- 
Siav, yeviiaerai (jTOiy^eloi'. (Adv. Gramm. C. 5.) 

Sextus here uses the term Trpoa^la in its extended 
sense, for all modifications of pronouncing a syl- 
lable, whether as to height, length, or aspiration : 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 169 

it is more commonly used by grammarians to 
express height, or accent, being the modification 
which strikes most sensibly on the ear. 

It is impossible to read these passages, without 
seeing at once, that quantity and accent were con- 
sidered by all these authors as entirely distinct from 
each other. Nor am I aware of any expression 
of a single ancient author, from which it can be 
inferred that accent is identical with quantity. 
Primatt, who most strongly maintains what he 
calls the lengthening power of the acute accent, 
says : — " That accent and quantity are two very 
different things, I readily confess ; for else the 
ancients had been mistaken in the number of the 
wpoGtoS'iai, and Aristotle would not have made 
acuteness and gravity of different consideration 
from length and shortness." (p. 68.) 

Those who contend that the acute accent gives 
a long time to the syllable on which it falls, quote 
a remarkable passage of the scholiast on He- 
phsestion. The scholium in question relates to 
that part of the text in which Hephaestion, having 
disposed of the definition of a long syllable, and 
that of a short syllable, proceeds to treat of the 
common syllable, which, he says, occurs in three 
modes. Upon which the scholiast remarks that 
Hephaestion has only mentioned three modes of 
a common syllable, whereas there are in truth 
twelve ; two which sink a long syllable into a 
short one, and ten which raise a short syllable 
into a long one. He then proceeds to discuss 
them, and having disposed of the two first, bv 



170 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

which a long syllable is turned into a short one, 
as in 

Ov uv fioi alru'i karri, 
UarpoKXe /j.ol SeiXrj, 

he proceeds to the remaining ten, by which a 
short syllable is turned into a long one : 1 . When 
a word ends with a short syllable, and the fol- 
lowing word begins with a vowel ; as, 

Ol ce fxeya In-^ovres, 
NeorOjOa £' oiiK eXadev la^f). 

2. " The second mode of elevating a short syl- 
lable into a long one, is by means of the acute ; 
for the acute of itself, being placed over short 
vowels or common vowels made short, lengthens 
them, as in 

Tpojes <? eppiyrjaav e7ret icW aioXov ocptv. 

Observe the last foot is a pyrrhic ; but since it has 
the acute placed over the O, it has been tradi- 
tionally received as a metrical trope or change, 
the acute lengthening the O, and not unseason- 
ably ; for the acute, being extended with eleva- 
tion, seems, both by its sound and by its very 
position and the delineation of its mark, to change 
the power of a short syllable. Now, the acute is 
of such a nature and power, as not only to 
lengthen a short syllable over which it is placed, 
but that even when placed on the syllable before, 
or the syllable after, it can impart time to a 
short syllable ; as in H vavryai Tepac. The syl- 
lable PAS, though short, is lengthened by the 
acute on the preceding syllable. So when placed 
on the following syllable, as in 

Xiaijxa 7rap€t7T(or, o & euro e&ev, 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 171 

the acute of $0ev lengthens the no, which is 
short. Whence the verse which appears to la- 
bour under the defect called lameness, gets rid, 
as far as is possible, of the defect by the assistance 
of the acute : but the second foot, which entirely 
wants assistance, remains subject to the aforesaid 
defect of lameness ; for the A in wapenruv has not 
the assistance of any one of the ten methods by 
which a short syllable is elevated into a long one, 
as the O next to eQev was lengthened by the fol- 
lowing acute. And it is allowed to use all these 
ten methods ; but to us it is allowed to use out of 
the ten only one, which we will shortly mention." 

3. The third method is by means of the circum- 
flex, whether on the preceding or on the following 
syllable, for it cannot be on the short syllable it- 
self, as in 

Uavrr) eiroiypnevoi, np\v avr kv X e ? ai yvvaimov, 
Olicrjas ukoyjbv re <j)i\r]v. 

4. The fourth is by the aspirate, which lengthens 
the syllable over which it is placed and those 
which immediately precede and follow it, as in 

"Ews 6 rav& upfxaive Kara typeva Kal Kara Ovfxov, 
~E\Tro[Aai eKTeXeeodai iva /Jtrj pe^ojiev wde. 

(Schol. Hephcest. p. 148. ed. Gaisford.) 

Here the catalogue ends abruptly, leaving us 
entirely at a loss as to the other six methods by 
which a short syllable may be lengthened. But 
does this passage, when taken together with the 
whole context, establish the position, that an 
acute accent necessarily gives a duration to every 



172 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

syllable on which it falls ? That it cannot at 
least be understood to mean that it does so to 
the extent of altering the quantity is clear, with- 
out going further, from the very verse quoted ; 
for if the accent necessarily makes long the first 
syllable of otyw, it must have the same effect on 
the first of l§ov and the second of aloXov, which 
would only be to help the metre in one foot by 
spoiling it in two others. Besides which, if we 
defer to the authority of the scholiast on this 
second canon or mode of lengthening syllables, 
I do not see how we can reject it as to the others. 
Now, to say nothing of the first, according to 
which the final syllables of eppiyriaav and aioXov 
would be lengthened, we must come to the con- 
clusion that any syllable, however short, is made 
long by the acute accent or the aspirate spirit 
falling on it, or by an acute, or circumflex, or 
aspirate, immediately preceding or following it ; 
which is absurd, as it would vitiate the metre of 
every line, I might almost say every syllable, of 
every Greek poem extant. But the scholiast is 
really not chargeable with any such absurdity. 
He is speaking of the modes, not of making syl- 
lables long, but of making them common : in 
other words, he is discussing a point on which 
modern scholars are extremely ignorant, in what 
cases the poet may take liberties with the quan- 
tity, and in what he may not. That this is his 
object, appears not only from the whole context 
taken together, but more particularly from the 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 173 

expression efem-i Ke^prjaOai, that it is "allowed to 
use," these methods. What can be the meaning 
of "allowed" if the accent necessarily makes 
long the syllable on which it falls ? If it be long, 
no matter from what cause, it must be used as 
long, and no question can arise whether it be 
allowed to use it so or not. So that, on the whole, 
the real meaning of the phrases pwvvei and ya- 
pieiadai y^povov, seems to be, that the accent and 
the aspirate too give the poet an excuse for using 
a short syllable in a place where the metre would 
require a long one, and that not only as to the 
syllable on which they fall, but those which im- 
mediately precede and follow it. And taken in 
this sense the proposition may be true ; at least 
we ought not to stigmatize it as absurd, till we 
are better acquainted with the principles on 
which the Greeks modulated their metrical feet. 
Even though we may not precisely understand 
the reasons for the doctrines laid down, we 
may pretty clearly infer from the different verses 
cited by the scholiast, that he is not discussing 
the ordinary effect of accent or spirit on ordinary 
syllables, but that he is giving technical rules for 
what we are apt vaguely to call poetic licenses : 
and his authority would be considerable, if we 
could be certain that the passage came from the 
pen of the original scholiast of Hephsestion, who 
is commonly supposed to have been no less a 
critic than Longinus himself. But this may be 
doubted, because we find the same passage, al- 



174 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

most word for word, and terminating in the same 
abrupt manner, in the treatise of Draco, who 
wrote before Longinus. {Draco Be Metris, ed. 
Hermann. Lips. 1812. p. 6.) This reason alone 
would of course be conclusive, if we were sure 
that all this treatise was from the pen of Draco ; 
but there are evidently some interpolations, of 
which this may be one. 

It may be observed, that the scholiast on He- 
phaestion, in a subsequent passage in which he 
is enumerating six different defects of verses 
(wadri rwv ariywv) , gives this same verse as an in- 
stance of a pe'iovpoc, or verse defective in its ter- 
mination ; but he adds — Toutwv fiev ovv tuv e£ 
rpoTTiov oaoi cvvavrai t) hia Koivr\c ov\\a{3rj<; t] 8ia 
avviZnvewc, OepcnreveaOai, ov Kvp'iwc dv icXriOelev waOrf. 

(p. 183.)— 

Athenseus calls this line a ^eiovpoc in a passage 
which will be more fully mentioned hereafter ; 
and so does Terentianus : 

Si nusquam hoc aliquis lectum putat, ecce dabitur, 
Versus Homericus Ausonio resonans ita modo, 
Quern fieiovpov Achaica gens vocitare solita est : 
Attoniti Troes viso serpente pavitant. 

Apud Pustch, p. 2425. 

Not one, I believe, of the writers against the 
marks has ventured broadly to lay down the pro- 
position, that accent and quantity are identical ; 
but almost all of them make such objections to 
the marks as are of no weight at all, unless that 
proposition be assumed. Vossius, whom Dr. 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 175 

Foster considers the earliest writer of that school, 
does not condescend to lay down any rules at all, 
but contents himself with marking three lines of 
Homer with what he calls the true accents ; 
leaving us to affix the accents to the rest of the 
works of Homer and other Greek poets as well 
as we can, by analogy to those which he has 
vouchsafed to us. The three lines which he marks 
according to his own dogma are as follow: — 

HeXtos <T avopovae, Xnrtov TrepucaWea Xlfivrji', 
Ovpavov es 7roXv)(a\KOP, iv aBavaroioi tyaelvt], 
Kal ByrjTolffi fiporolaiv cttl ^eiduipov apovpav. 
De Poematum Cantu et Viribus Rhythmi. Oxon, 1673, p. 19. 

He appears to have wished to identify accent and 
quantity, as far as it was possible, by placing his 
marks on long syllables, and on long syllables 
only, but the structure of the language forces 
him into three inconsistencies in as many lines. 
The first syllables of ^eAioq, aOavarolai, and Qvh)toIgi 
are left without marks, and necessarily so, as 
Vossius was no doubt aware of the rule that no 
word could have two acute accents. And yet it 
is evident that these syllables are long, and so to 
be accounted in the metre. Then his marks on 
ec and €7ri are inconsistent : ec being long, ought 
to have been marked. If it be answered that ec 
is long only by position, that is also true of the 
last syllable of enl on which he leaves the mark. 
There is perhaps no inconsistency in his leaving 
the last syllables of Xlfivriv and tyae'ivy without a 
mark ; because these, being final syllables, may 



176 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

be indifferently taken as long or short : but how 
would he have treated these words in the middle 
of a verse ? he must have left the final syllable, 
although long, without a mark. Again, how 
would he have marked e-m if it had not happened 
to be made long by position ? how, for instance, 
would he mark the preposition in 

\QaKr\v Kara KoipaveovaiV 

Here he must either have placed the mark on a 
short syllable, or deprived the w T ord of accent 
altogether, which would be contrary not only to 
the general analogy of the language, but directly 
at variance with the whole body of Grecian gram- 
marians, who disputed, as we have seen, on which 
syllable the accent in such cases ought to be, but 
who all agreed that it ought to have an accent. 
Vossius does not appear to have embraced our 
theory that all words but monosyllables are bary- 
tones : on the contrary, he leaves the accent on 
the last syllables of \nrwv and e?n, probably be- 
cause they are long, and to iJeAioc he has given 
an accent on the last syllable: — a distinction, 
which, as it never possessed before, it does notseem 
long to have retained, the pronunciation of our 
schools and universities being invariably r?eXioc. 
Nor does he confine this fabrication of oxy tones to 
the Greek language, where it is merely misplaced, 
but extends it to the Latin, where it is utterly 
inadmissible, unless we suppose, with Vossius, 
that the authority of Vossius is superior to that 
of Quinctilian. He would accordingly lay the 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 177 

accent on the last syllable of every pentameter 
verse as, 

Victorem victse succubuisse queror ; 

"Notwithstanding the bold assertion of some 
learned men, that no words in Latin have the 
long accent (longum accentum) on the last syl- 
lable ." (p. 33.) Now the joining these words is 
of itself sufficient to show that Vossius confused 
the notions of two things essentially different: 
the expression " long accent" being as un- 
meaning as if a man should say that the nave of 
St. Paul's is so many square yards higher than 
the Thames. 

Primatt is an author of a very different stamp 
from Vossius ; instead of boldly deciding, ac- 
cording to his own preconceived notions, he had 
the patience to search through the works of the 
ancient writers on the subject, and his book has 
this peculiar convenience, that he quotes his au- 
thorities in chronological order. Unfortunately 
however Primatt began his inquiry, as the majo- 
rity of modern scholars must, with an ear uncon- 
sciously wedded to Latin rhythm. The result 
was, that he could not, on the one hand, refuse 
his assent to the testimonies which he found in 
favour of a pronunciation according to the marks • 
nor could he, on the other, divest his mind, or 
rather his ear, of its predilection for the Latin 
modulation. How were two so opposite ideas to 
be reconciled? By assuming that the marks 

N 



178 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

were to be followed in prose only. The attempt 
to reconcile these two theories has, as might be 
expected, forced Primatt into many inconsisten- 
cies, and thrown much obscurity into his other- 
wise valuable treatise. Primatt, though admitting 
that accent and quantity are two very different 
things, contends, that "as it is natural in the 
raising of the voice to extend it, and in the fall- 
ing of it to contract it, so in this respect accent 
seems to be confounded with quantity" (p. 69) ; 
and he states that the ancient grammarians had 
no conception that there could be any elevation 
of voice without an addition of time (p. 71). He 
touches very briefly on this point in the body of 
his work : but after finishing his book, he was 
led by a perusal of Dr. Foster's ' Essay' to enter 
further into the subject ; and accordingly in his 
preface, which was written after the book itself, 
he brings forward fresh authorities for his theory. 
I do not think it necessary to cite his authorities, 
most of which are referred to in other parts of 
this Essay. A great part of his reasoning con- 
sists of instances in which different writers have, 

as he Contends, USed the words -nitric, eTrrratric, 

and emreivcj, in such a sense as shows that they 
attached to these words the meaning of extent or 
time. 

Teivu) signifies to stretch, which was no doubt 
also the sense of raw, though this last word, or 
more correctly speaking this form of it, had gone 
out of use before the time of Homer, who uses 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 179 

Tctvvu) for it, in its primitive sense of stretching 
the string of a musical instrument : — 

£ls or avYip, (popfjtiyyos kirioTafxevos /ecu aoidfjs, 
Pr/V^/ws eTavvaae pea) enl koXXottl ^opdiji'. — Od. <£. 40(3. 

Now, the effect of stretching a string is, to make 
it produce a sound by vibration when touched, 
which sound will be higher or lower in proportion 
as the string is stretched. So that it is easy and 
natural to apply the term raaic, which represents 
the mechanical action, to the sound which is the 
effect of it : and raaic, when once applied to the 
sound of a stringed instrument, would without any 
violence be used also of the notes of a wind instru- 
ment or of the human voice. And in this last 
sense it is commonly used by the grammarians 
to signify accent ; as is also roi>oc, which is de- 
rived from reiVw, and may be generally consi- 
dered as synonymous with tclglq, as we have 
already seen in various passages from authors 
who were treating of accent, without any men- 
tion of time or quantity. 

Primatt further cites Hesychius on the word 

€7riTe?vat, which he interprets fjieyaXvvai, fxaKpvvai : 

and on emreiveTai, which he renders eir\ no ovn 

7rAeova£ei, r\ aujei., rj eic, eiri^oaiv ayerai. But these 

general expressions bear but little on the niceties 
of this question. It is natural enough, in a popular 
sense, to confound length and size : for though it 
be true that an object does not by being stretched 
really increase in bulk, yet it seems to the eye 
to do so ; so that we come to use it for actual 

N 2 



180 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

increase in size, as when we say that Augustus 
extended the Roman empire. But such terms 
cannot prove that whatever is stretched becomes 
larger, and still less that whoever uses the ex- 
pression of eiriTeivai or eTrlraaic when Speaking of 
acuteness either in music or in grammar, means 
to include the idea of time in these terms. The 
interpretation which we find in the ' Etymologicum 
Magnum' of eiriTaaic, and aveaic, instead of favour- 
ing Primatt's argument, makes directly against 
it, as the etymologist evidently applies the ex- 
pressions /uaXXov Kal rjrrov to the intensity and 
not to the duration of sound : — ULttitckjic, kcl\ aveoic, 

OlOV TO (XaWoV KQl 7]TTOV' TClVTa C€ eiprjTCtl C17TO 

/n€Ta(f)opaQ i u)v *£op$u)v' e/eei yap r\ fxev cnroreivo/jievTi 
<r(po§pov cnroTeXei ipo(j)ov' rj $e -rrapeifxevi] eXdrrova. 

But though I think that Primatt has failed in his 
attempt to prove that ancient writers attached 
the idea of quantity, that is, duration or extension 
of time, to the terms raaic, and eir'traGic, I am far 
from wishing to be understood that there would 
have been any absurdity in their using these 
terms to express that idea, if they had been 
pleased to do so ; and their limiting them to the 
idea of acuteness, as I think they have, may be 
considered as purely arbitrary : indeed it seems 
more natural to apply the term " stretching " 
to duration than to acuteness ; because in the 
latter case the acuteness of sound is only one 
among other qualities of a stretched string, which 
is not obvious at first, and which we do not learn 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 181 

at all till we touch it ; whereas, we see at once 
that a string by being stretched becomes longer, 
and we readily transfer the same expression to 
the action of lengthening a note or syllable by a 
protracted action of the windpipe. Accordingly 
we have already seen (p. 28), that Dionysius ap- 
plies the terms rera/uLevov avXov rov irvevfxaroc, to 

the action by which syllables are made long in 
pronunciation. And though tovoq and raaic, are r 
I believe, always used by grammarians for accent, 
we find the former expression used by Herodotus 
as synonymous for metre, which was a modifi- 
cation of quantity : — ev e^ajjikrpw rovix) (Clio, 47) ; 
ev rpifxkrpu) rovto (Ibid. 174). On the whole it 
is obvious, considering how words in all lan- 
guages come to be used in senses quite different 
from their primary meaning, that we can never 
safely infer from an author using a given term, 
that he meant to attach to it an idea in accor- 
dance with its root : nor is there any reason to 
suppose that the Attic grammarians, when using 
Tame, in its popular sense, attached to it any idea 
of extension. 

Primatt quotes a passage from Dionysius Thrax: 

— Tovoq, irpoc, ov abopev Kai tk\v (j)wvrjv evpvrepav 

iroiovjjiev. But this definition of tone, if it be cor- 
rect, would not show that accent { ives quantity, 
as the term evpvrepav does not seem applicable to 
either height or length, but rather to aspiration. 
He might have found a more correct definition 
from the same author, and quoted from the same 



182 QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 

source, in the body of his own work (p. 126) : — 

EffTi tovoc, eiriraaic, ri avevic, r) /LieGorrjc GvWapwv 

evtyuviav eyovoa, (Wetsten. Append, p. 169. ex MS. 
Dion. Thra. in Biblioth. Medic.) But since the 
publication of Primatt's work, we owe to the in- 
dustry of Bekker a reprint of a manuscript of Dio- 
nysius Thrax, in which we find a definition more 
full and more in accordance with the expressions 

of Other grammarians : Tovoc eari (frwvrjc airr]yr\(Jic 

evapfxovlov, r) Kara avdraaiv ev ry o^eia, rj Kara 
ofiaXiG/Liov ev ry flapeia, h Kara irepiKXaaiv ev tt? 
TrepKnriDpevij. (Dionysii Thracis Grammatica in Bek- 
ker. Anecdot. Grcec. p. 629.) I cannot think that, 
on the whole, Primatt has established his position, 
that the acute accent gives time or extension to 
a short syllable on which it falls ; nor do I think 
that that proposition is true in any the least de- 
gree ; but we shall see, when we come to the 
subject of Greek verse, that it may be true to 
a certain extent, without a violation of metre. 

I cannot quit his work without remarking how 
irresistible must have been the weight of evi- 
dence on his mind in favour of a pronunciation 
according to the marks ; since it drove him to 
follow the marks at least in prose, even when 
they gave extension, as he thought, to short 
syllables. Primatt, in reading St. Luke, would 
certainly have said Trpayjuarw, though he must 
have confessed, if consistent with his theory, that 
the word by such a pronunciation lost its proper 
quantity, and ceased to sound like a Cretic. 



QUANTITY DIFFERENT FROM ACCENT. 183 

Unless therefore all the Greek and Latin writers 
whose works have been cited on this subject, 
were utterly mistaken, it is clear that they at 
least had a way of pronouncing eSo&v and irpay- 
fiarwv according to their marks, and yet making 
the former an Amphibrachys, and the latter a 
Cretic. In TrpaypaTuv no particular care would 
be required to give length to the first syllable ; 
because if the r and the M be both properly 
enunciated, that syllable must take up some 
time: the second syllable they would raise with- 
out dwelling on it, and pass on immediately to 
the third, on which they would expend a long- 
continued action of the breath. And what is to 
prevent our doing the same, if we will but give 
ourselves the trouble? I feel well assured that, 
with a little practice, the ear might be accustomed 
to the distinction between long and short syl- 
lables as such without reference to accent at all ; 
and that it is a fault in our present system of 
education that no such distinction is sufficiently 
attended to. Buttmann warns us against this 
fault, and teaches us that we ought to distin- 
guish the accented long vowel (w or w) from the 
unaccented (grave w), as in avdpwiroQ, and yet 
without reading this last as a short O : and he 
adds, that we may accentuate the first syllable 
in avOpiDTroc and yet lengthen the second, as we 
do in German in many words, as dltbater, dlmosen 
(Griech. Gramm. s. 9. p. 25., 15th ed. Berlin. 
1838.). 



184 



GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 

3. I have thought it necessary to enter at 
some length into the distinction between accent 
and quantity, in order to guard against the fal- 
lacies which spring from an assumption of their 
identity, or, what is practically the same thing, 
their necessary coincidence ; and I think I have 
succeeded at least so far as to show that there is 
no inherent or necessary principle of accent, or of 
quantity, which obliges us to conclude that a 
short syllable, as such, must be grave. This step 
in the argument I will suppose then to be con- 
ceded, as in truth, I believe it readily will be, by 
a great majority of English scholars. Any ob- 
jection which remains, after making this con- 
cession, against raising the middle syllable of 
Trpay/LiaTtDv, must be founded, not on the nature, 
but on the position of that syllable. English 
scholars in general have no hesitation in laying 
an accent on the first syllable of ^.ar^v, whether 
in verse or in prose ; so that they without scru- 
ple pronounce kqi parriv according to the marks, 
though at the same time they acknowledge that 
these two words together form a foot of exactly 
the same quantity as irpaypaTwv. In the Ho- 
meric line — 

Sis e<par' e<)£ei(Tev 3' 6 yepwv — 

none of my countrymen, as far as my observation 
goes, have adopted the accentuation of Vossius, 
who without doubt would have made yepwv an 



GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 185 

oxytone ; but all pronounce it according to its 
mark. Suppose the article and noun incorpo- 
rated into one word, and the verse to run — 

£2s €(j>a.T' e^eurev S' oyepiov ; — ■ 

I feel persuaded that they would neglect the 
mark, and make it a proparoxytone, oyepw. Now 
it is obvious that this distinction cannot depend 
upon the nature of the syllable itself, because 
that still remains the third of a dactyl, and must 
be equally short whether making part of a word 
of three syllables or of a word of two. So that 
the objection must depend on the position, and 
not on the nature of the syllable ; that is, it must 
be founded on the assumption that a short syl- 
lable, though at the beginning of a trisyllable it 
may be acute, must in the middle of a trisyllable 
be grave. But do we find any authority for this 
proposition as applied to Greek ? on the con- 
trary, there is scarcely a page on accent in the 
Greek writers, from Plato to Athenseus, where it 
is not either expressly or by clear implication 
contradicted. Look, for instance, at what Apol- 
lonius says (p. 127) on the accent of eyyvrepu, 
and what can have induced the most learned men 
of England to maintain that a penultimate in 
Greek, because it is short, must be grave? I 
fancy that an Englishman who had been taken 
to Athens or Corfu at ten years old, and there 
taught Greek, without learning Latin, would be 
utterly at a loss to answer this question. To 



186 GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 

him it would be inconceivable that scholars who 
had read, and some of them edited, rules for 
Greek accents, and who were constantly using 
books with marks in accordance with those rules, 
should notwithstanding adopt a pronunciation 
entirely at variance with them. And yet the 
reason why they do so is a very simple one, that 
their ears get the better of their understanding. 
Having learned Latin first, they early become so 
wedded to the accentual modulation of that lan- 
guage, that they cannot bear to go against it in 
Greek. Having always pronounced tyrdnnus, 
they shrink from rvpawoc as a false accent, or, 
as they call it, a false quantity : and because 
mdximos is a proparoxytone, Trpayfxarayv offends 
their ear like a false note in music. And so, 
though they never distinctly predicate that the 
Greek accents depend on the same principles as 
the Latin, they do in fact pronounce Greek in 
the same manner as they would if they had per- 
suaded themselves of the truth of that propo- 
sition. I am inclined to think that the disincli- 
nation to pronounce Greek by the marks is to be 
attributed to an unconscious assumption of this 
principle, rather than to the adoption of any ex- 
press theory propounded either by British or 
continental writers. Greek literature, being first 
introduced by the Greeks who fled from the 
Turkish invasion, would doubtless be at first 
taught with their own accents, which we know 
corresponded with the marks ; and so it probably 



GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 187 

long continued. The dispute between the Reuch- 
linians and Erasmians in the sixteenth century 
was confined to the pronunciation of the letters ; 
though Reuchlin and Erasmus both learned Greek 
from Greeks, and therefore doubtless with ac- 
cents in accordance with the marks. Dr. Foster 
says that he is not able to discover that the faith- 
fulness and propriety of the Greek accentual 
marks were ever much doubted before the time 
of Vossius. (Introduct. p. xii.) But though Vos- 
sius, who lived much in this country, and pub- 
lished his treatise at Oxford, may have contri- 
buted to discredit the marks, it seems more na- 
tural to suppose that the pronunciation of Greek 
which prevails to this day, has slid in gradually 
by transferring the Latin accents to Greek : par- 
ticularly as we have not followed Vossius in 
making oxytones of words ending with a long 
syllable. In this country the study of Latin 
usually precedes that of Greek, which is not 
begun till after the ear has been accustomed to 
the modulation of Latin ; so that nothing can be 
more natural than to apply the early-learned 
accents of the one to the pronunciation of the 
other : and this is still more easily done when we 
come to metre. Here we find the closest analogy 
between the two languages ; the rules of quan- 
tity the same ; no species of verse composed in 
the one which may not be fitted to the rhythm 
of the other. The mistake of supposing, or ra- 
ther insensibly assuming, that the accents were 



188 GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 

also the same, is therefore not surprising : it has 
obtained a firm footing in our schools and uni- 
versities, which it will maintain until there shall 
be sufficiently frequent and general communica- 
tion with Greece to rid us of the fallacy ; which 
is so much the more difficult to expose, because 
it lurks in the sense and not in the understand- 
ing. And this is the great difficulty which I have 
always found in discussing the point with my 
own countrymen, that they are prejudiced, not 
by a theory, for that may be stated and refuted, 
but by a matter of taste, though mistaken taste, 
from which it is not easy to obtain a fair hearing. 
They will not endure an argument, which is to 
end in their pronouncing irpayiiaTuv : their ears, 
they say, are sufficient to show that that cannot 
be correct, and if it is not, it matters not much 
where the fallacy lies. I think scarcely any one 
who will have the patience to state and consider 
the question, whether Greek and Latin accents 
depend on the same principles, will end by de- 
ciding that question in the affirmative. Besides 
the striking difference already pointed out, that 
the Greek has oxytones while the Latin has 
none, it has been shown that the rule in Greek 
for the accent of trisyllables not being oxytones 
is, that it depends on the quantity of the last 
syllable. How is the rule in Latin ? We learn 
this from Quinctilian, who disposes of the whole 
subject of accentuation in a very few sentences : 
— " Cujus difficilior apud Grsecos observatio est 



GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 189 

(quia plura illis loquendi genera, quas SmXe/crouc 
vocant: et quod alias vitiosum, interim alias 
rectum est), apud nos vero brevissima ratio. 
Namque in omni voce, acuta intra numerum 
trium syllabarum continetur, sive hae sunt in 
verbo solae sive ultimse : et in his aut proxima 
extreme aut ab eo tertia. Trium porro de 
quibus loquor, media longa aut acuta aut flexa 
erit : eodem loco brevis utique gravem habebit 
sonum, ideoque positam ante se, id est ab ultima 
tertiam, acuet." (I. 5, 29.) 

Here we find a most simple rule for the accen- 
tuation of Latin trisyllables ; nor is it necessary 
to add the qualification, not being oxy tones, there 
being no oxy tones in Latin except monosyllables. 
There is so far a similarity between the two lan- 
guages, that in both the accent is confined within 
the three last syllables, and in both it depends on 
the quantity ; but there is this striking difference, 
that in Latin it depends, not on the quantity of 
the last syllable, but of the penultimate or middle 
syllable, which if long is either acute or circum- 
flex, if short is grave, and therefore heightens the 
syllable before it, that is, the third from the end, 
or aswe commonly say>the antepenultimate, whe- 
ther that antepenultimate itself be long or short, 
for so Quinctilian must certainly be understood ; 
otherwise he would have qualified his proposition. 
In merttus, because the KI is short, the ME, 
though also short, is accented. And this code, 
though contained in so few words, is really diffuse. 



190 GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 

" In trisyllabis media brevis gravis," would have 
been sufficient to those who knew that the Latin 
has no oxytones but monosyllables, and that 
every word must have one acute accent. Take 
maximos for instance, where is the acute to be 
placed ? not on the last, for it cannot be an oxy- 
tone ; not on the middle, because " media brevis 
gravis ;" therefore necessarily on the first. 

But does Quinctilian lay this down as a rule 
of universal application ? does he tell us that it 
agrees with the natural quantity of syllables, or 
with the inherent principles of rhythm ? no such 
thing : on the contrary, he mentions incidentally 
that the subject in Greek was one of more diffi- 
culty : and though he instances the variety of 
dialects as a cause of the difficulty, there is no 
reason to suppose that he intended that as the 
only cause ; nor if he did, could we safely infer 
that any one of the various dialects, and least of 
all the Attic, which we are more immediately dis- 
cussing, agreed in accentuation with the Latin. 
And so far from the Latin accentuation being 
founded on any eternal principles of rhythm, 
Quinctilian declares that the Greek accents were 
so much sweeter than the Latin, that his coun- 
trymen introduced Greek words into their verses 
for the purpose of improving their modulation. 
So that it seems impossible to predicate that the 
accentuation of Latin and Greek trisyllables de- 
pends on the same principle, without stating, as 
Dr. Gaily has roundly done, that Quinctilian was 



GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 191 

mistaken in the former, or that modern scholars 
understand the latter better than Apollonius. 
And in truth, though most of the writers against 
the marks have evidently the Latin modulation 
in their ears, there is none, 1 believe, except 
Henninius who has broadly ventured to lay down 
the proposition that Greek and Latin must be 
accented in the same manner. Henninius does 
not seem to have troubled himself to investigate 
the works of Greek grammarians, but he pro- 
pounds four rules for the pronunciation of Greek, 
Latin, and Arabic, which he pronounces to be 
infallible, by which I suppose he means, that 
they agree with the eternal fitness of things. 
"Modulatio ergo linguse Arabics, Grsecse,Latinse, 
his quatuor regulis infallibilibus continetur : — 
I. Omnis vox monosyllaba modulationem habet 
in sua vocali : ut, cjxvq, vovc, a\c, &c. ; mons, fons, 
ros, nix, &c. II. Omnis vox dissyllaba modu- 
lationem habet in syllaba priori : ut, \6yoi, oSoi, 
<t>iovri (quamvis ita notentur accentu, oSoi, <£wi/?7, 
&c); rnontes, fontes, nives, &c. III. Omnis vox 
polysyllaba penultimam longam modulatur : ut, 

avOpwrroc, TVTTTVJfiai (lege avOpioiroc,, TVTrrdjiuai) ; 

Graecorum, juctinda, &c. IV. Omnis vox poly- 
syllaba penultima brevi modulatur antepenulti- 
mam : ut, dominus ; aXoyuv (lege aXoywv), &c." 
(Henrici Christiani Henninii EXX^v^oc OpOySoc, 
seu Grsecam Linguam non esse pronuntiandam 
secundum Accentus, Dissertatio Paradoxa. Tra- 
ject ad Rhen. 1684. ss. 113—1 17.) If we have 



192 GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 

indeed followed any continental writer in our 
pronunciation of Greek, Henninius can make 
a better claim to be our leader than Vossius ; for 
certainly these four "infallible" rules are pre- 
cisely those by which we are guided : but we 
shall find, on comparison, that they agree exactly 
with Quinctilian's rules for Latin, and for that 
very reason are certainly wrong in Greek, what- 
ever they may be in Arabic. It is not a little 
remarkable that Henninius in selecting the word 
ruTTTw/iat as one of the illustrations of his third 
rule has adopted the very accentuation cited as 
an instance of barbarism by Herodian, who had 
not the advantage of having discovered any in- 
fallible rules on the subject : but let us ask, who 
is the more likely to be mistaken, the Greek or 
the German ? 

It would seem, from Henninius styling his 
essay " Par ad ox a," that it was opposed to the 
general pronunciation of his own countrymen at 
least at that time : if the essay of Vossius had 
produced any effect in discrediting the marks, 
that of Henninius may be supposed to have com- 
pleted the work, by abolishing them not only 
where they interfered with his accentuation of 
trisyllables, in which he and Vossius agreed, but 
also where they were found on the last syllable, 
so that every word in Greek, as in Latin, "in 
gravem vel duas graves cadat semper." And I 
must confess, that this theory seems, if not 
more reasonable, at least more consistent, than 



GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 1$) 

that of Vossius, who, though he treats the accent 
as giving length, is constrained to admit short 
syllables with an accent, and long syllables 
without one. But Henninius and his school 
are entangled in no such difficulty : they lay the 
accent on the first syllable of mdximos and irpay- 
juarwi', not because every short syllable must 
needs be grave, but because in a trisyllable, 
" media brevis gravis :" and they lay the accent 
on the first of domos and yepwv without any in- 
consistency. Of all the writers on the subject 
Primatt is the most inconsistent, transferring in 
verse the acute accent from the second to the 
first syllable of irpayixaruyv, for the express reason 
that it gives length, and yet reading verse ac- 
cording to the Henninian system, which freely 
admits this lengthening acute in every iambic 
disyllable and in every anapaestic trisyllable, f 
say Henninian : for though Primatt nowhere pro- 
fesses himself a disciple of Henninius, he evi- 
dently adopts in Greek verse the accents of Latin, 
which he speaks of as having been read, " ac- 
cording to quantity ; " whereas, if by this expres- 
sion it is meant that the acute accent and the 
long time always coincide, it is obvious that the 
Latin can no more claim to be read according to 
quantity than the Greek. Accordingly, in the 
passage of Aristotle which has been already dis- 
cussed, Primatt thought that there could be no 
accentual sophism on the w T ord StSo/nev in verse, 
because, whether it stood for the infinitive or for 



19* GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 

the first person plural, it would in verse be equally 
accented S/Sojucv. But why could not it be SiSo/mev 
in verse? because the acute accent would lengthen 
the AO, and so spoil the verse : this must be his 
answer, unless we are to suppose that all the pages 
which he has written on the power of the acute 
are to be taken to be without meaning. But does 
not the acute lengthen the AI in one case as much 
as the AO in the other ? and in a place where a 
dactyl is required, does it not spoil the verse as 
much by lengthening the second syllable as by 
lengthening the third ? Vossius would no doubt 
have avoided this inconsistency by boldly affixing 
his " longum accentum" to the last syllable and 
marking it SiSo/uev. Primatt unfortunately had 
read too much of Apollonius and Herodian to 
think of accenting the last syllable of any but a 
contract verb, and so becomes constrained to 
lengthen a short syllable. In short, in poetry, 
Primatt's course is lamentably unsteady, always 
endeavouring, but in vain, to steer between the 
Henninian Scylla and the Vossian Charybdis. 
However natural therefore it mav be for us to 
say TTpaynaruv because we say mdximos, there is 
in truth no authority for our doing so older than 
the seventeenth century : while the whole stream 
of authors from the earliest time pours in a flood 
of testimony the other way. And however para- 
doxical it may seem, it may I think fairly be 
said, that it is sufficient to count these authors 
without reading them, to persuade ourselves of 



GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 19.1 

the point I am now contending for. If every 
fragment of every writer on Greek accent had 
been lost, and there had remained only an au- 
thentic catalogue of them, stating the number of 
pages they consisted of, though in that case we 
should have been left in ignorance what Greek 
accents were, we should at least have known that 
they could not have been like the Latin, the whole 
code whereof, " brevissima ratio," as Quinctilian 
calls it, is comprehended in a few lines. We 
might have inferred with tolerable certainty, that 
a subject on which there had existed disputes 
between Apollonius and Herodian, and on which 
Aristarchus and Callimachus had differed, must 
have embraced more complexity and variety than 
the Latin accentuation. And a similar remark 
occurs on the accentual marks. We find them 
indeed strikingly exemplifying and supporting 
the writers. But suppose all the marked manu- 
scripts had been lost, and we had nothing but an 
authentic tradition that such marks had in fact 
been used for many centuries. Such a tradition 
might well have led us to suppose that there 
must have been considerable difficulty and variety 
in the accentuation which had called forth that 
invention. Why were no such marks used in 
Latin ? simply, because they were not wanted. 

When I speak of our ears being prejudiced 
in favour of the Latin accents, I mean by habit 
merely, and not by any superiority of their sound. 
On the contrary, 1 am persuaded that any one 

o2 



li)t> GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. 

who shall hear Greek read by a Greek will at 
once be persuaded of the sweetness which the 
accents give by the variety of their modulation : 

Taaeic, (frtovrjc, al KaXov/nevai irpoatvciai §ia(j)opoi, KAeV- 
Tovaai ry 7roiKi\ia toi> Kopov. {DlOTiyS. xix. 158). 

And even an Englishman in reading to himself, 
if he could divest himself of his preconceived 
notions, would, in comparing rvpawcc rpiaivac 
TioaeL&oiv with tyrdnnus tridentis Neptunus, find the 
Latin accents " similitudine ipsa minus suaves," 
as did Quinctilian, whose ears were not likely to 
have been unduly prejudiced against them. 

The proof which has been afforded of the dif- 
ference between the accentuation of Latin and 
Greek trisyllables and the rule laid down for the 
former, " media brevis gravis," enables us at 
once to explain the passage of Quinctilian on the 
accent of volucres, which certainly at first sight 
strikes us as identifying accent and quantity. 
" Evenit ut metri quoque conditio mutet accen- 
tum : ut ' pecudes, picteeque volucres.' Nam vo- 
lucres media acuta legam : quia etsi brevis natura, 
tamen positione longa est, ne faciat iambum, 
quern non recipit versus heroicus." (I. 5. 28.) 
From which Primatt infers that the Latin accent 
produced or made long the syllable which bore 
the acute : hence " volucres media acuta legam " 
is the same with Quinctilian as to read the middle 
syllable long. (Pref. p. xxi.) But, in this very 
same verse, 

Cum tacet omnis ager, pecudes, pictaeque volucres, 



GREEK ACCENTS DIFFERENT FROM LATIN. V.>7 

does the acute make long theh'rst syllables of tdcet, 
of dger, and of pecudes ? We cannot apply to the 
Greek a passage which, though unquestionably 
correct, is correct only as applied to Latin, and 
even there only to trisyllables. The middle syl- 
lable of volucris is grave, and if the necessity 
of metre require you to make it long, you must 
change the accent as well as the quantity, and 
read it with an acute. But why ? Not because a 
long syllable and an accented syllable are the 
same either in Greek or in Latin, but because in 
the latter language the accent of a word of three 
syllables depends upon the quantity of its penul- 
timate. " Media brevis gravem habebit sonum." 
The same explanation applies to two passages 
which Primatt cites from Aulus Gellius : 

" Valerius Probus Grammaticus : is Hanni- 
balem et Hasdrubalem et Hamilcarem ita pronun- 
tiabat, utpenultimam circumflecteret." (iv. 7.) 

" Annianus poela : is afFatim ut admodum, 
prima acuta, non media, pronuntiabat." (vii. 7.) 

I have dwelt longer upon the difference be- 
tween Greek and Latin accent, because I am 
persuaded that an assumption of their general 
identity is the fallacy which causes most of my 
countrymen to reject the pronunciation by the 
marks. This fallacy is at once detected by 
asking ourselves two questions: first, why do I 
lay the accent on the first of domus? The an- 
swer points out to us that a short syllable is not 
of necessity grave, and therefore a long syllable 



H>S PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 

is not of necessity acute. Having gained this 
step, we come to the second question, why do I 
lay the accent on the second of tyrdnnus ? Not 
from necessity, but because Quinctilian tells me, 
*■ media longa acuta," which is an arbitrary rule, 
true in Latin, and false in Greek. 

PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 

4. I think I have answered the only two ob- 
jections which can be made to the reading irpay- 
liutlov according to its mark. A short syllable is 
not, simply as such, necessarily grave : neither is 
the middle syllable of Trpayfiarwv to be modulated 
by the same rule as the middle one ofmaximos. 

Still however I can imagine that my readers 
may not be entirely convinced. Their under- 
standings may not be able to refuse assent to 
any of the propositions which have formed links 
in the chain of reasoning ; and yet their ears 
may remain unsatisfied till they shall have heard 
Greek verse recited in such a manner as to re- 
concile accent with quantity, so that irpayfxarwv 
may sound at the same time as a paroxytone 
and as a Cretic. Now this is a very difficult 
thing to accomplish. Though the Greek of the 
present day reads Xenophon and Plato in a way 
to do justice to the sweet variety of the accent, 
he has lost the art of reciting Homer and Euri- 
pides, with the metrical rhythm which is neces- 
sary to mark the proportion between long and 
short syllables . All we can learn on that sub- 



PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 199 

ject is from the writings of the ancients, which, 
as might have been expected in a subject so 
nearly connected with music, leave us sorely in 
want of a living teacher to enforce and explain 
what we read. And in truth, on this subject, 
grammar without music, can do little more than 

Teach us to mourn our errors, not to mend ; 
A sharp accuser, but a helpless friend. 

Nevertheless I think enough remains for the 
purpose which I have in view. I think, though 
I cannot myself recite Greek poetry as the an- 
cients did, that it may not be impossible for the 
Greeks of the present day to revive the rhythm 
of their ancestors : but supposing this out of the 
question, we have enough in the ancient authors 
to give us some idea of their mode of recitation, 
and to show us, if not what it was, at least what 
it was not, and that there is no pretence for vio- 
lating their accents, under the pretence of pre- 
serving their quantity. 

I shall with this view, and this only, hazard 
some observations, perhaps I should rather say 
guesses, on the principles on which the Greeks 
fixed the quantity of their language, and the 
manner in which they expressed it. 

And first, as to the principles on which they 
fixed the quantity. That they must have ob- 
served it in prose, is clear from the nature of 
the thing, and from express authority. From the 
first origin of the language, avOpa% must have 
taken more time to pronounce than e^e : av9pa% 



200 PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 

must therefore have been essentially long as com- 
pared with e^ue, and that word short as compared 
with avQpa%, before any poet made use of either ; 
and so they must necessarily continue as long as 
the language endures . so that when a Greek 
says avdpaZ, e/Lie cf)\eyei, he cannot help giving the 
first two words the proper relative quantity : it 
is true that he might dwell as long on e/ie as on 
iv0pu%, but this would produce so drawling and 
unusual a sound, as would be ridiculous, if not 
unintelligible. 

Besides, as the accent of words above two syl- 
lables depends on the quantity of the last syllable, 
it is obvious that the quantity of the last syllable 
must have been so sensible to the ear in com- 
mon discourse as to afford a guide for the accen- 
tuation of the preceding syllables. 

We shall see further express authorities that 
time, that is quantity, was observed in prose. 

The principles which regulated quantity seem 
to have resulted partly from necessity and partly 
from arbitrary rule. And first, of those fixed by 
necessity. 

Every vowel must take up a certain time to 
be intelligibly pronounced ; but that time will 
be increased if we combine it with a consonant, 
which must of course be also pronounced ; if 
there be two consonants the time must be longer 
to give effect to each, and besides, the number 
of consonants being the same, some will take 
more time to sound than others. For instance, 



PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 201 

the first syllable of arjSrjc takes a certain time to 
pronounce ; as little perhaps as any in the lan- 
guage. Let the number (1) represent the time 
we take to pronounce it. It would require a 
longer time (2) to pronounce the first syllable of 
aXr/0i?c, because here we must give effect to the 
A as well as the A, before we can pass on to the 
next syllable. A longer time (3) would be re- 
quired for aya/toc, because the T is more difficult 
to pronounce than the liquid A ; a longer (4) for 
aOpavaoc, and so (5) for aypioc, (6) for a£toG, and 
(7) for avdfj(t)7roc. Now the time which each of 
these words takes in the pronunciation results 
not from any arbitrary rule, but from the nature 
of things, it being impossible for our organs of 
speech to produce two or three sounds in as 
short a time as one : " Longa erit syllaba, 
quando post vocalem vel diphthongum sequun- 
tur duse vel plures consonse, quse in sui pronun- 
tiatione diversos oris motus requirunt, vel, ut 
medicus medice loquar, diversorum in ore mus- 
culorum actionem, unde necessario duo aut plura 
momenta insumi debent ad consonas pronuntian- 
das diversim." (Henninius , s. 84.) 

Thus the first syllable of avOpviroc is by necessity 
longer than the first of a\r)9rjc, because the A in 
avQpuTToc, by being placed before three consonants, 
must take more time to pronounce than the other 
A, which is placed before the single A ; or, to adopt 
the usual phrase of grammarians, the A in avOpuj- 
7roc is longer by position than the A in a A >/#»'/<;. 



202 PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 

But besides this difference in the quantity of 
syllables, which results from necessity, or, as I 
shall henceforth call it, from position, there is a 
further difference, which seems merely arbitrary. 
It appears that the Greeks made the first syllable 
of \ivov shorter than that of &W Why ? Not from 
necessity certainly, but because so it sounded well 
to the ears of those patriarchs, were they Abori- 
ginals, Egyptians, or Pelasgians, who first spoke 
the language. The distinction seems purely ar- 
bitrary, and must be referred to usage alone. 
Every vowel, therefore, which is longer than an- 
other, is so either by position or by usage. The 
grammarians indeed tell us that some vowels are 
short, and some long, by nature : for instance, 
they say that the first syllable of ww is long by 
nature: why? because it is written with an Q, 
which is always a long vowel. But we should 
recollect that it is not long because it is written 
with an Q, but it is written with an Q to show 
that it is long. Before the invention of that let- 
ter, usage, and usage alone, must have settled the 
quantity. Nor can we give any reason for 6~6v 
being long, while o w Soc is short, but that usage 
would have it so. But usage having so fixed it, 
and after ages having invented a mode of writing 
which distinguishes a long O from a short one, we 
find wov written with an Q, and oSoc with an O. 
The first vowel of &V»? is always long ; why may 
it not be called long by nature as correctly as 
the first of woi> f 4 There is no difference in the 



PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 203 

cases, except that the Greeks do not happen to 
have invented any mode of writing a long I dif- 
ferently from a short one. Suppose such an in- 
vention, and the long I to have been written J, 
we should have written the word Sj'i/ij, and said 
that the first syllable was long by nature, for- 
getting that it is really long by usage, and that 
there is no reason in the nature of things why 
Sn>?7 should be long and Xivw short. And further, 
the very syllables which we call long by nature 
are often made short, and the syllables which we 
call short by nature are made long : the first syl- 
lable of (TToa is usually short ; but it is used long 
by Aristophanes (Eccles. 676). So the first of 
lior) is usually long ; but it is made short by Euri- 
pides (Hecuba, 1090). How can these syllables 
be said to be long or short by nature ? I shall, 
therefore, to avoid the confusion which this 
expression might introduce, consider all vowels, 
however written, which are not influenced as 
to their quantity by position, to be influenced 
by usage. We have seen that the quantity of 
vowels depending upon position varies gradu- 
ally ; and there can scarcely be a doubt but that 
there was the same variety in those vowels which 
depend upon usage. The scholiast on Dionysius 
Thrax mentions a controversy between two no 
less critics than Apollonius and his son Herodian 
as to which of the vowels E or O was the shorter. 
(Bekker, Anecdot. Grtec. p. 798.) And Dionysius 
of Halicarnassus lays it down as a general pro- 



204 PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 

position, that there is no exact scale or nature 
of the length of syllables, but that of the long 
syllables some are longer, and of the short, 
some are shorter than others : M/jkouc Se Kal 

fipayyTr\TOC <JvXXaf3wv ov fxia (j)v<ric, aXXa Kal pa- 
Kporepal Tivec elcri ru>v f.iaKpi2v Kal fipayvrepai twv 

(5pa^eiwv. (xv. 104.) And Quinctilian in almost 
the same words: " Sit in hoc quoque aliquid 
fortasse moment! , quod et longis longiores et 
brevibus sunt breviores syllabse." (ix. 4. 84.) 
Thus the scale of the length of syllables must 
have been varied by position and usage, and 
therefore further varied by a combination of both. 
As, for instance, take the first syllable of toov to 
be as long as that of a^toc, that of wXevri would be 
about equal to that of avOpwiroc, which we have 
represented by the number (7), then wyvyioc 
would be (8), wOpooc (supposing such a word) 
would be (9), wypwc, (10), w£ioc (11), and wu9pcu- 
woe (12). If, again, of the long vowels some were 
longer, and of the short some were shorter than 
others, we should have a fresh scale of quan- 
tities : as, for instance, suppose the H to be 
shorter than the Q, then the first syllable of 
vyayov would be longer than that of aya/moc, but 
shorter than that of wyvyioc : and so perhaps that 
of aXvpoc may have been shorter than that of oAoc, 
and that of eXci<poc shorter than either. Besides 
this, I have probably omitted some degrees in the 
scale of syllables made long by position ; as, for 
instance, the A in uarrip may have been longer or 



PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 2i)3 

shorter than the A in of ioc. It is perhaps scarcely 
necessary to say that these numbers have been 
adopted to explain the variety of quantities : it 
is by no means intended that any person would 
in ordinary discourse dwell twelve times as long 
on the first syllable of tovOpwiroc as on that of 
oijSijc. But it appears, not only from the autho- 
rity of Dionysius, but from the nature of things, 
that from the shortest vowel standing by itself, 
to the longest vowel combined with the greatest 
number of consonants, there is a gradual scale of 
length from which a great variety in the quan- 
tity of syllables must inevitably result. This 
variety in the length of syllables furnishes us 
with an additional argument against Primatt's 
reasoning, that the acute accent, by giving time 
to the syllable on which it falls, would spoil the 
quantity of poetry. I have endeavoured to show 
that the acute accent does not in truth give any 
time at all to the syllable on which it falls. But 
admitting that the accent gives some time, does 
it give sufficient time to disqualify the syllable 
on which it falls from being used in verse as a 
short one ? For unless it do so, Primatt's argu- 
ment of the incompatibility of the accent with 
verse fails entirely. Admitting, for argument's 
sake, that in the word en the first syllable is 
longer than the other, and that it is made so, if 
you please, by the extension or time which the 
acute gives it, this by no means shows that it is 
to be accounted a long syllable : " sunt brevibus 



fm QUANTITY IN COMMON DISCOURSE. 

breviores ;" the first syllable is still short, though 
the second be shorter. 

QUANTITY IN COMMON DISCOURSE. 

5. The next question is, how the Greeks ex- 
pressed the quantity of their syllables in common 
discourse, in oratory, and in poetry, 

And first of common discourse. The first ob- 
ject of speech is to communicate our thoughts, 
and the greater part of mankind naturally enough 
limit their use of speech to that object, without 
any considerations of rhythm or harmony ; and 
it is difficult to believe that the Greeks, with all 
their fine taste, did otherwise : we may suppose 
that an Athenian, in the time of classic purity, 
who was busy in the vegetable market, would be 
thinking more of how many onions he could get 
for an obolus, than whether the second syllable 
of Kpo/n/nviov was long or short. But still he 
would unconsciously attach the proper quantity 
to each word, however trivial the subject on 
which he was speaking : he would thus dwell 
longer on the QN than on the MY, though he 
would not trouble himself, while engaged in 
counting the onions, about the exact time which 
each syllable ought to occupy. That the Romans 
also had the power of marking the difference be- 
tween long and short vowels as such, is proved, 
if proof can be thought needful, by that passage 
in Suetonius, in which he describes Nero as pun- 
ning on the death of Claudius. " Nam et morari 



QUANTITY IN COMMON DISCOURSE. 207 

eum inter homines desisse, producta prima syl- 
laba, jocabatur." (Nero, c. 33.) The wit, such as 
it was, and no doubt it was thought clever at 
court, consisted in pronouncing the first syllable, 
so as to express that Claudius had ceased, not to 
abide (morari) , but to play the fool (morari from 
the Greek juiopoc) among mankind. It is clear, 
that whatever quantity be given to the first syl- 
lable of morari, the accent must be on the second : 
so that the way of making the first long must 
have been by dwelling longer on it. It appears 
from Cicero that the first letter of inclytus was 
short, that of insanus long. (Orat. 48.) Certainly 
the first syllable of both these words was long by 
position ; but there was a difference between the 
vowels themselves, which the Romans expressed 
in pronunciation. Aulus Gellius mentions a dis- 
pute between two scholars of his own time, whe- 
ther the E in quiescit ought to be long or short 
(Noct. Attic, vi. 15): and he enters into an argu- 
ment as to the proper quantity of the first letters 
of actito and unctito. (lb. ix. 6.) Draco lays 
down a rule, that A followed by S and a mute is 

Usually short, as aaOpa, currrlc, offo, AacXriirioc. 

k. r. A. (p. 22), and again (p. 25) that the A in 
apirlc is short. 

The quantity of syllables made long by position 
would, if the expression may be allowed, take 
care of itself: as, for instance, it would not be 
possible for any one, even in common discourse, 
to pronounce avQpumoc without making the first 



208 QUANTITY IN COMMON DISCOURSE. 

syllable long ; because be could not make tbe 
word intelligible, without giving effect to the N, 
the 6, and the P. 

I am inclined to think that a great part of the 
misapprehensions of English scholars, both as to 
tbe pronunciation and the quantity of Greek, is 
owing to our not taking into consideration, that 
the Greeks might, and most probably did, give 
a greater extension to their long syllables, than 
that to which our ears are accustomed. Unless 
mine deceive me, we have a shorter pronuncia- 
tion of every kind of syllable than any other 
European nation. The Scotch give a greater 
length to the long vowels, which would, I think, 
be grateful to the ear, were it not generally ac- 
companied by a different disposition of the or- 
gans, and not unfrequently by a different accent 
from our own. A Scotchman, who could catch 
perfectly all our sounds, preserving his own na- 
tional time, would, I think, speak more agree- 
ably than almost any Englishman, and would be 
thought to do so by many an Englishman, who 
would not be able to say why it was so. But 
not only is it probable, that the Greeks in all 
times have given a greater extension to the long 
vowels than w r e do, but further, that the Greeks 
in Homer's time gave them a greater than the 
Greeks in the time of Sextus Empiricus. That 
they did so in the case of some of the diphthongs 
at least, seems nearly certain ; and not unlikely 
in many, if not all, the long vowels. Syllables 



QUANTITY IN ORATORY. 209 

made long by positron, though we cannot make 
them understood without giving each letter its 
sound, we slur over in the least possible time ; 
and if we do not quite cheat them, we give them 
the scantiest measure which the exigencies of 
language will allow. Any one who has heard 
Italians pronounce such syllables, and remarked 
how much more time they give to the first two 
syllables of convent o than we to conventional, will 
at once understand my meaning. This rapidity 
of speech makes it harder for the ear to catch 
the difference of the quantity of our syllables, 
though the disproportion be as great between 
them in the English language as in the Greek ; 
just as the relative distances of places are less 
easily caught by the eye on a map of a small 
scale than on a large one. 

QUANTITY IN ORATORY. 

6. The mode of expressing quantity in oratory 
requires a fuller consideration. The orator con- 
sidered quantity as an important study, adapting 
it artfully to the effect which he wished to pro- 
duce on his hearers, sometimes exaggerating it 
to a degree which would be ridiculous in com- 
mon discourse, and sometimes slurring it over 
with a rapidity which nothing could reconcile to 
the ear, but the hurry of vehement passion. He 
would, moreover, even in the discussion of the 
most solemn and important matters, be too well 
aware of the influence of sounds, not to select 



210 QUANTITY IN ORATORY. 

such words as would be best suited to the par- 
ticular passion which he meant to communicate 
to his audience. This with the Greeks was an 
avowed object of study, and we find Dionysius 
not only recommending it, but enforcing it by 
way of example, by scanning the quantities of 
some of the finest passages in the orators. Ha- 
ving first discussed in this manner a speech from 
Thucydides, and pointed out how well suited is 
the choice of words to the subject, he proceeds 
to speak of the rhythm of the funeral oration of 
Plato ; and the whole passage is well worth our 
consideration, not only as showing beyond a 
doubt that the orators attended to quantity, but 
as pointing out even particular feet which they 
seem to have chosen as suitable to particular 
passions. The oration begins with the following 

Words: Epyo> /nev rj/uuv oi$ ey^ovai ra TTpoai^Kovra 

a(j)i(nv auTotc, which Dionysius proceeds to scan : 
we may observe that the commencement might 
be considered as a trimeter iambic : 

but it seems from our author, that this manner of 
delivering it would have taken away from the so- 
lemnity suitable to the subject : he accordingly 
divides it thus : epya) fxev is a bacchic foot ; not 
thinking it right to scan this branch of the sen- 
tence as an iambic, inasmuch as the quantities 
to be assigned to pathetic subjects should not 
run glibly, but should be slowly drawn out ; then 



QUANTITY IN ORATORY. 211 

rjju?i> is a spondee ; oi'Se e (for he would have the 
orator pause long enough after ol$e to take away 
the synaloepha) would be a dactyl ; y^ovai would be 
a spondee, either by the interposition of a final N, 
or by the effect of a long pause, probably the latter, 
as in that passage of Quinctilian : " Paullulum 
enim morae damus inter ultimum atque proxi- 
mum verbum, et ' turpe' illud intervallo quodam 
producimus." (ix. 4. 108.) Ta irpoaii he considers 
rather as a cretic than an anapest ; Kovra in his 
opinion is a spondee, no doubt on account of the 
consonants which follow it : afyiaiv av\ would be 
a hypobacchic, which is to suppose the last syl- 
lable of v(j)i(nv long, or if you please, an anapest, 
if you make that syllable short (xviii. 138). 

When we find so considerable an antiquarian 
and historian as Dionysius bestowing so much 
pains to analyse the rhythm of these sentences, 
we see at once what pains they must have cost 
the great men who framed them : with how much 
technicality every syllable is disposed ! and with 
what art, though concealed art, the whole must 
have been delivered ! Let us consider how in 
our own country we are charmed by a public 
speaker who excels in emphasis and delivery ; 
and then let us carry our minds back to the ora- 
tors of Athens, who it is clear, from what we 
have just read, paid a closer attention to the 
technical measuring of sounds than we do : be- 
sides this, let us at least suppose it possible that 
their organs of speech may have been more deli- 

p2 



212 QUANTITY IN ORATORY. 

cate, their ear more refined, their taste more ex- 
quisite, than ours, and we shall soon confess, that 
they may have had other means of marking the 
quantity than our clumsy substitute of misplacing 
the accent. For instance, we may well suppose 
that Plato would make the first syllable of e'/oyw 
long by giving full effect first to the P and then 
to the T, as an Italian would in the word ver- 
gine. Not that I think the Greeks in ordinary 
discourse marked these syllables so strongly as 
the Italians ; but, on a solemn and mournful oc- 
casion, an enunciation might be excused and 
applauded, which perhaps in common life would 
sound pedantic : then to produce the second syl- 
lable, the orator would not content himself with 
the simple pronunciation of the Q, but would 
continue the sound, like a singer holding a note, 
for some time, with a protracted action of the 
breath. So Quinctilian, speaking of the manner 
in which a passage is to be delivered : ' ' Plenius 
adhuc et lentius ideoque dulcius, in cjetu. Pro- 
ducenda omnia, trahendaeque turn vocales, ape- 
riendaeque sunt fauces." (xi. 3. 167.) These com- 
ments of Dionysius serve as an illustration of the 
passage from the same author already adverted to 
[p. 167], where he says that rhythm changes the 
natural time or quantity of syllables. Dr. Gaily, 
indeed, considers the passage as showing that 
" the accents that were first used were agreeable 
to quantity." (p. 110.) But an attentive consi- 
deration of the whole context will show that ac- 



QUANTITY IN ORATORY. 213 

cent is neither mentioned nor intended in the 
passage. Dionysius is speaking of four different 
things in composition, tone, rhythm, variety and 
propriety. All these four subsist in prose com- 
positions as well as in vocal and instrumental 
music, though in a less degree. He first illus- 
trates the difference between the range which 
music takes, from that allowed in common dis- 
course, by his instance of the alya alya Xevicov, 
where he shows how music interferes with the 
natural accent ; and then he goes on shortly to 
say, that rhythm in a similar way interferes with 
the natural quantity of syllables ; and his reason 
for not staying to give an instance was probably 
that he intended to do so in a subsequent sec- 
tion, which he has accordingly done by his ana- 
lysis of Thucydides and Plato. 

It may perhaps be said, that this power, which 
Dionysius gives to the orator, of altering the 
quantity of syllables to make them suit the times 
which he thought convenient, proves too much : 
that if he had been gifted with this apparently 
unbounded licence, he would have been relieved 
from the necessity of selecting words with long 
or short syllables, as he might at pleasure have 
produced the one or the other by dwelling a long 
or a short time on the syllables which he was 
pronouncing. The answer seems to be, that he 
was restrained in his choice of words partly by 
public opinion, which may have been as effectual 
a check over rhetorical as over other despotisms, 



214 QUANTITY IN ORATORY 

and partly by the nature of the thing itself ; as it 
would perhaps be scarcely possible to give to 

SUCh passages as " cnroTrpofiar airoirpodi ko'itcic," 

or " animula vagula blandula," long-drawn times, 
without making them unintelligible. 

It may be observed, that the Roman orators 
paid as much attention to quantity in their 
speeches as the Greek. This we may collect 
from numerous passages in the treatise de Ora- 
tore. Quinctilian, speaking of the different kinds 
of feet of which prose as well as verse is com- 
posed, says, " Et quidem Ciceronem sequar, nam 
is eminentissimos Grsecorum est secutus." (ix. 4. 
79.) It is obvious, from the nature of the thing, 
as well as clear from the former observations, that 
the orator might lengthen the second syllable of 
epyb) without reference to its accent ; for if he 
could not, it was perfectly immaterial whether it 
was written e'/oyw or epyo ; and instead of epyy 
fxev having the effect of a bacchic foot, it would 
sound like a dactyl. So he might give the full 
effect to the long syllable of eyowi without lay- 
ing the accent on it ; and in Trpoafaovra, let him 
lay the accent on which of the syllables he would, 
the other syllable would require to be made equal 
to it in length. 

And here it may not be unworthy of observa- 
tion, that, though Dionysius points our particular 
attention to the quantity of the passage in Plato, 
we can hardly suppose that less attention was 
paid to the accents. We find e'/oyw and ripi* va- 



QUANTITY IN ORATORY. 215 

rying in accent ; and the last three words, irpoa- 
riKovra g$igiv ahroic,, with three different accents. 
Can this be the result of mere accident ? Or is 
it not more probable, that we have here a speci- 
men of that " beguiling variety of accent, " which 
Dionysius praises and Quinctilian envies, but 
which the modern scholar, by pronouncing irpoa- 
riKovra a(j)i<nv auTotc, unconsciously destroys ? 

It has been already remarked, that probably 
in ordinary discourse the quantity would be less 
studiously preserved than in oratory : but per- 
haps a practised orator would carry even into 
common life the habit of marking the distinction 
between long and short syllables in such a way 
as would at once distinguish him from unedu- 
cated persons: and this distinction would per- 
haps be more perceptible in syllables long by 
usage than by position. For instance, if there 
were a trifling difference between the manner in 
which an educated and an uneducated man pro- 
nounced avOptowoc, such difference would be more 
likely to be in the second syllable than in the 
first. Neither of them could pronounce the first 
syllable intelligibly, without giving such effect to 
the consonants of which it is composed as must 
make that a long syllable. But we cannot say so 
of the Q in the second syllable. The vulgar 
might pass over that with such rapidity as to 
make the word sound like a dactyl, and yet 
make it quite intelligible. But the man of edu- 
cation, who had paid habitual attention to the 



216 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

proper mode of pronunciation, and still more 
the orator, who had studied sounds, and expe- 
rienced their effects on the ears of his audience, 
would remember that the vowel of the second 
syllable was long, and would pronounce it as 
such, though without pedantry or affectation, 
yet in a manner which would at once convey 
the right quantity to the ear, and preserve an 
agreeable contrast between the Q of the second 
and the O of the third syllable. 

QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

7. It is not so easy to determine, with any 
degree of precision, the manner in which the 
quantity was preserved in poetry. The princi- 
ples, indeed, must have been the same in poetry 
as in prose ; and in both the manner of marking 
quantity must have been by dwelling a long time 
on the long syllables. In poetry too, as in prose, 
there must have been ample room for the display 
of taste and judgement in the selection of words 
with a quantity suitable to the subject : for in- 
stance, where the nurse of Medea is lamenting 
the flight of her mistress from her native coun- 
try, she describes the uncontrolled passion which 
hurried her away in terms as rapid : 

Epwrt Ovfiov eKTrXayela ldaovos. (Euripid. Medea, v. 8.) 

When Electra receives the urn, which she believes 
to contain her brother's ashes, the poet has not 
been so unmindful of his art or of his reputation, 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 217 

as not to insert the flpaSeiQ Kal avafiefiXripevovQ 

^povovQ in every foot in which the metre allowed 
them : 

Qt ^>i\to.tov fivrjfxelov dv0pw7T(i)v e/uiol, 

Wvxys Opeorrov Xotirov. (Sophocl. Electra, v. 1126.) 

Surely we could have pronounced, without the 
aid of any recondite learning, that such contrasts 
as these between the quantities of the two pas- 
sages could not have been the result of accident ; 
they must have been studiously framed to pro- 
duce an effect on the audience ; and no effect 
could they have produced, unless there were a 
corresponding vehemence and rapidity of deli- 
very in the one passage, and a pathetic slowness 
in the recitation of the other. But though these 
general principles of quantity were common to 
the orator and the poet, there was a considerable 
difference between the degree of license allowed 
to them. Although the orator could not succeed 
in producing the desired effect on his audience 
without selecting words with longer quantities 
on some occasions than on others, he was by no 
means fettered as to the proportion which his 
short syllables bore to his long ones, nor as to 
the particular place which each ought to occupy ; 
so that he might range through the whole lan- 
guage for a word suited to his meaning, and, 
having found it, he might give to each syllable 
the time or quantity which he judged most suit- 
able to it, without troubling himself or his audi- 
ence to determine whether he considered it as a 



218 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

long or a short syllable. Whereas the poet had to 
deal with a fixed metre, in some places of which 
he was bound to place a short syllable, in others 
a long one ; in others, again, he was restricted to 
the option whether he would place one long or 
two short syllables. Cicero expresses the dif- 
ference with his usual elegance: " Neque vero 
hsec tarn acrem curam diligentiamque deside- 
rant, quam est ilia poetarum ; quos necessitas 
cogit, et ipsi numeri ac modi, sic verba versu 
includere, ut nihil sit, ne spiritu quidem minimo, 
brevius aut longius quam necesse est. Liberior 
est oratio, et plane, ut dicitur, sic et est, vere 
soluta, non ut fugiat tamen, aut erret, sed ut 
sine vinculis sibi ipsa moderetur." (Be Oratore, 
iii. 48.) Observe here the measure (" spiritus") 
by which Cicero distinguishes the length of syl- 
lables agrees exactly with that ("auAoc rov irvev- 
fiaroc, ") of Dionysius. 

But what ought the poet to consider as a long 
syllable, and what as a short one ? We have al- 
ready seen how great a variety there is and must 
be in the scale of quantity. We have no difficulty 
in saying that the first syllable of av^vQ must be 
short, and that of (oxpoc long : but when we ap- 
proach the middle of the scale, we cannot pro- 
nounce with the same certainty what must be the 
quantity of aOpavaroQ and of aypioc : and giving to 
those words what quantity we will, we are obliged 
to confess that the difference between the longest 
of the short syllables and the shortest of the long 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 219 

ones must have been trifling. Indeed the same 
syllable was sometimes used as long or short, as 
in the well-known line of Homer beginning with 
Apec, Apec. Again, the same syllable was used as 
long at one period and short at another. Thus we 
find that Homer makes the first syllable of 'taoc 
always long, the dramatic poets always short. 
Perhaps the quantity of this word in common 
discourse may have varied between the age of 
Homer and that of iEschylus : but more probably 
Homer added something to the ordinary quantity 
to suit the dignity and grandeur of heroic poetry, 
and the dramatists, whose diction was nearer to 
common discourse, pronounced the word in the 
usual manner. The grammarians apply to the 
syllables which are found short and are found 
long the term koivtj avWafiri : but it may be 
doubted whether there was such a thing as a syl- 
lable which might be used either as long or short 
at the mere will of the poet. We have indeed 
in Homer the first syllable of v$wp used long and 
used short : — 

IL'ev aX/jivpov vBcop. (Od. A. 511). 

and 

N/r»W (//. A. 829). 

But are we to infer that it was purely indifferent 
what quantity was applied to this word ? How 
comes it that Homer never makes this syllable 
long in the second part of a foot ; never begin- 
ning a verse, for instance, Etc vSwp ? This can 
scarcely have been accident. The probability is, 



220 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

that the greater part of the syllables which we 
call common were short in ordinary discourse, 
but were occasionally lengthened by the poet. 
But in this was there no limit to the poet's will ? 
This is a question to which modern scholars have 
not yet given sufficient attention. 

It is not improbable that the invention of the 
H and Q may have had the effect of a literary 
stamp in marking the proper time of the words 
in which they were used, and in deterring the 
later poets from taking a liberty with the quan- 
tity, which would oblige them to take a corre- 
sponding liberty with the orthography also. Had 
it not been for the invention of the Q, I doubt 
whether the verse of Homer ending with aloXov 
ocpiv would have been so much remarked and 
canvassed. Perhaps in Homer's time the first 
syllable of ocpic, took up about as much time as 
that of \f$i*)p : each of these Homer has made 
long ; and yet the latter instance gives us little 
difficulty, while the former is boldly pronounced 
defective, or supposed to be cured by the accent, 
or by writing it ontyiv. So that we find, with 
respect to a very great number of syllables, that 
usage alone was the arbiter, whether they were 
to be classed as long or short ; and that this 
usage varied according to times and circum- 
stances. 

But not only do we find a difficulty as to many 
syllables in deciding whether they are to be con- 
sidered absolutely as long or short ; but we are 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 221 

further embarrassed in fixing a definite measure of 
length to those syllables which were always used 
as long, or to those which were always used as 
short. We find, indeed, in general that two short 
syllables might, in certain feet, be used at the 
will of the poet instead of one long one ; and the 
writers on the subject tell us, that a short syl- 
lable consists of one time, and a long one of two : 
from which we might infer that all the long syl- 
lables in the language were of the same length, 
and all the short ones were of just half that 
length, and consequently equal to each other. 
How is this to be reconciled with the variety 
which we have observed in the scale of quantity, 
and with the authority of Dionysius to the same 
effect? Neither can it be said that Dionysius 
has confined his observation to oratorical quan- 
tity : further authorities from the same author 
expressly extend the observation, so as to apply 

to poetry: ApKei yap, ogov etc rrjv irapovGav virodeGiv 
rip/uLorrev, elprjaQai, on SiaWarrei Kai f3pa^e7a gv\- 
Xa/3r) fipayelac, Kai fxaKpa fxaKpac,, Kai ovre rrju clvtyiv 
e^ei Svvafjuv, out ev Xoyoic \piXo7c, ovr ev iroinjjiaGiv 
it) fieXeGi, $ia pvBjuiiSv rj fxerpiov KaraGKeva'CofxevoiQ, iraaa 
fipa^ela r) iraGa fiaicpa. (XV. 108.) 

And, again, speaking of those lines in the 
Odyssey in which Sisyphus is described rolling 
the stone up the mountain, he says, Vvdfxoic, re 

Kai SaKTvXoiQ Kai Girov^eioiQ role, jayik'igtoic,, Kai irXei- 
gttjv e^ovGi Siafiacriv airavra GvyKeirai. (XX. 166.) 

Now if one dactyl or one spondee could be longer 



222 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

than another, the syllables of which they were 
composed must have varied in length, that is, 
quantity. 

In this variety of the quantity of syllables, a 
variety as great in poetry as in prose, and indeed 
in a great measure arising from the universal 
principles of language, it is clear that a division 
of the language into long and short syllables is 
just as arbitrary as if a general were to divide 
his army into tall men and short men. The con- 
sequence must have been, that the mere reading 
of a passage of Greek poetry like prose could not 
have been sufficient to mark the metre with pre- 
cision, supposing it to be necessary to that pre- 
cision that one long syllable should take up 
exactly twice as much time as two short ones. 
Suppose a Greek, ignorant of metre, but in all 
other respects perfectly acquainted with all the 
niceties of the language, to have read poetry 
aloud, he would not have expressed the metre 
with the degree of precision above supposed : he 
would have read it like prose, giving to each 
word the due quantity which it ought to have in 
common discourse, and making, therefore, a con- 
siderable variety in the quantity of the syllables. 
He would either in reading Homer make iW too 
short, or in reading Euripides, too long. In the 
verse beginning Apec, A^ec, he would unques- 
tionably repeat the same word with the same 
quantity. This is worth our consideration ; be- 
cause we are apt to assume that the Greek Ian- 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 223 

guage is made up of short syllables and long 
ones, that two of the former are exactly equiva- 
lent to one of the latter, and further, that in 
reading poetry simply like prose, the reader 
ought to be able to mark the metre with pre- 
cision, so as to make it perceptible to his audi- 
ence. But have we any authority that the works 
of the Greek poets were read like prose? It 
appears from Aristotle (Poet., sect. 3.) that the 
works of the dithyrambic poets were set to in- 
strumental music : the music was probably that 
of stringed instruments, and particularly the lyre, 
from which we commonly call this kind of poetry 
lyric poetry. That the lyre was not with them, 
as with us, a figurative expression, but a sub- 
stantive instrument, is shown by innumerable 
passages, but by none more than that of Pin- 
dar : — 

AAAct Aiopiav and (jidp/Myya iraaadXov Xdfifiav. (Olymp. 1). 

A poet of Pindar's taste would never have stooped 
to so homely an expression as taking down the 
lyre from its peg, unless the figure had been sug- 
gested and justified by the practice of subsisting 
manners. The bard of Alcinous, who is not ne- 
cessarily to be supposed to use the same metre as 
the great bard who describes him, brings his harp 
to the feast of the Phaeacians, Achilles, with- 
drawn from the scene of war, is found soothing 
his angry spirit with the lyre, and singing to it 
the deeds of heroes. The expression of Horace, 



224 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

" Cithara carmina divides," should I think be 
rendered "Thou wilt divide verses into feet by 
the aid of the lyre." (Od. I. 15.) It is obvious 
that the music might assist in expressing the 
proportion of the long and short syllables. In 
singing, a syllable may be prolonged to a degree 
which would be unbearable in common dis- 
course. 

With respect to dramatic poetry, Aristotle in- 
forms us that tragedy and comedy had parts 
which were set to music and parts which were 

not : Et<ri $e riyec, at ttclgl y^pwvTai role elprjpevoic' 
Xeyu) Se, olov pvOpto tcai peXet teat perpo)' ujairep rj 
re rwv Si9vpapf3wv rroiria ic, teat r) twp vopiov, /cat /J 
T€ TpayuSia teat rj Kcopio^ia' §ia([)epov<Ji $e, on at 
pev apa ttclgiv, at Se Kara pepoc. (Poet. 3.) There 

seems little doubt that the form of poetry which 
had music in some parts and not in others was 
the dramatic ; the part set to music being the 
choric or lyrical metre, and the part not set to 
music being the iambic, and perhaps the trochaic, 
dactylic and anapaestic portions. That this was 
also the case in the Roman drama may be 
inferred from Horace, who, in describing the in- 
creasing luxury of theatrical music, says, that the 
pipe was originally used for the purpose of ac- 
companying the chorus : — 

Tibia 

Adspirare et adesse choris erat utilis. (Ars Poet. 202.) 

The term choral music is applicable not only 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 225 

to what is sung by the chorus, but also to lyrical 
parts sung by other personages, but always, I 
think, addressed to the chorus. This choral mu- 
sic, however simple at first, became very elabo- 
rate, and, I doubt not, very scientific. I have 
already given my reasons for thinking that the 
accents were generally distinguishable by the ear, 
in verse as well as in prose. This however was 
not always the case. Music, whose province was 
at first only to assist poetry, by degrees usurped 
the first place in the chorus, and made poetry 
subservient to herself. Airs were composed of 
exquisite melody, but with little or no attention 
to the words which were to be set to them. In 
this case, the accents would necessarily be de- 
stroyed by syllables, which ought to be height- 
ened, being set to base notes, and grave syllables 
to high notes ; or, as Dionysius expresses it, in 
the passage already quoted (p. 166), music makes 
the words subservient to the melody, and not the 
melody to the words ; and he gives as an instance 
the passage from the Orestes : — 

Xtya crlya XeuKOV 'i^vos dpfivXrjs 

TtQelre, /ur) KTvrceiTe. 

d7ro7rp6j3ar eiceia diroTrpodi koitcis. 

Dionysius seems here to appeal to his readers, 
as knowing not only the air itself, but every note 
of it ; which he would not have done, unless he 
had been satisfied that the majority of them un- 
derstood music. If the passage at first sight 
appear to favour Primatt's theory, that the ae- 

Q 



226 QUANTITY IN POETRY 

cents in verse were changed so as to suit what he 
calls quantity, this idea is at once negatived by 
the instances given : for <r7ya aiya Xevkov are all 
sung in the same note, and therefore at the same 
height ; whereas, according to Primatt's theory, 
orlya alya ought to have been left as they were, 
and Xevicov only changed from an oxytone to a 
properispastic. In apflvXrjc the change is not by 
transferring the acute from the middle syllable to 
the first, as Primatt, and Vossius also, would 
have done, but by making the third of equal ele- 
vation {o/ulotovov) with the second : an expression, 
which, followed as it is by the remark that a word 
cannot have two acute accents, shows, that in 
ordinary discourse apfivXrjc was pronounced ac- 
cording to its mark. Tt0e?Te and KTvireire, though 
agreeing with Primatt's theory, are both changed ; 
and in cnroirpo flare, which ought to have no ac- 
cent at all, if accent makes a syllable long, or, if 
any, on the third syllable, the raaic is transferred 
to the fourth. 

Aristoxenus gives the same account of vocal 
music, that it makes the accents undistinguish- 

able : — Ae? tt\v (ptovriv ev tw /ueXb)celv tclq jxev eirira- 
aeic re Kal avkaeic, aCpavelc iroieiadai. (p. 20.) This 

expression exactly agrees with that of Dionysius, 

tov ll KTVTreTTe" o irepiairaaiiOQ rityaviGTai. It may 

be further observed, that these expressions of 
Dionysius and Aristoxenus as to the merging of 
the accents are by no means applied by them to 
all poetry : we may infer from the term fx'eXeaiv 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 227 

in the first author, and pe\w§eiv in the second, 
that they are only speaking of choral music, 
without anything to lead us to extend the re- 
mark to iambics, where, on Primatt's principle, 
it would be not only possible, but even neces- 
sary, to merge those accents, which according 
to his theory are inconsistent with quantity. It 
seems probable that Homer accompanied his 
verse with music. Athenseus infers this from 
his leaving so many verses lame (rw x w ^° rr i Ta 
eyovrao) , while Solon, Theognis and others, whose 
poetry was not set to music, took more pains with 
the numbers and arrangement of their metres, 
(xiv. 632.) It would seem from hence that a 
defect in the due length of a syllable was more 
easily cured in music than in simple recitation. 
We learn from Plutarch that Terpander set his 
own epics and those of Homer to music and sung 
them at the games. {Be Musica, s. 3. vol. v. 
p. 630, ed. Wyttenbach, Oxon. 1800.) It seems 
that in Quinctilian's time heroic verse was not 
set to music, and yet was not read like simple 
prose: — " Sit autem in primis lectio virilis, et 
cum suavitate quadam gravis : et non quidem 
prosae similis, quia carmen est, et se poetae ca- 
nere testantur : non tamen in canticum dissoluta, 
nee plasmate (ut nunc a plerisque fit) efFeminata : 
de quo genere op time C. Caesarem praetextatum 
adhuc accepimus dixisse, Si cantas, male cantas ; 
si legis, cantas." (I. 8. 2.) He is here speaking 
of Greek as well as of Latin poetry. But though 

q2 



228 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

this poetry was not to be sung, the rhythm was 
to be marked, and the quantity, that is, the time, 
preserved in a technical manner quite out of the 
reach of those who did not understand music : — 
" Turn nee citra musicen grammatice potest esse 
perfecta, cum ei de metris rhythmisque dicendum 
sit." (1.4.4.) 

Whether Quinctilian by the term "musice" 
intended to express what we call music, it is not 
easy to say. Sufficient light is thrown upon this 
passage by a subsequent one, in which, in urging 
the advantage of a knowledge of " musice" to the 
orator, he anticipates the objection : — " Quo me- 
lius vel defendet reum vel reget consiiia, qui ci- 
tharse sonos nominibus et spatiis distinxerit ? " 
(I. 10. 3.) We may collect from these expressions 
that his term " musice" embraced at least such a 
technical measuring of sounds as seldom enters 
into an English scholar's education when he is 
learning to read and recite poetry. I feel and 
regret this defect in my own education, and in 
that of the majority of my countrymen ; a defect 
mainly owing to an opinion that the cultivation 
of music tends to give an effeminate softness 
to the character, and to unfit men for graver 
studies. Not so thought the Spartans: — 'Atto 

yap rijc rov (jlov awtypoavvric, kcll avarripiac, perkpaivov 
arr/uievojc eiri tt)v jnovancrju, eyovaav to k^Xtjtikov ttjg 

eTTiGTiijLiTic. (Athenceus, xiv. 623.) 

How, then, was that poetry recited which was 
not set to music, and yet was not read like prose ? 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 229 

It is not perhaps possible to answer this ques- 
tion with precision : but still enough may be 
learned from the ancient authorities, and parti- 
cularly from Quinctilian, for the illustration of 
the subject 

The poetry of the Greeks, and of the Romans 
who followed them, was divided into parts, which 
we will call after Quinctilian, spaces : each of 
these spaces was subdivided into so many times 
(tempora or arinela). A time was defined to be 
the indivisible, or least possible time, meaning, I 
suppose, the least time required to pronounce a 
vowel. 

lipuiTuc fnev ovv ecrTt ypovoc, aro/uoc ko.i eAa^ioroc, 
be. Kai ari/ae'iov KaXelrai' eXa^iarov Se KaXu) rov wc 
ttjOoc ri/Liac, oc, ean 7rpu)TOC KaTaXrjTTTOC, aiaOrfcFei' 
trrifielov Be KaXelrai &ia to afxepriQ e\vai m KaOo Kai oi 
yew/JLerpai to irapa. a<piaiv ctfiepec, orifieiov 7rpoar)y6- 

pevoav." (Aristides Quintilianus, p. 32. ed. Mei- 
bom.) 

I doubt not, this definition was found sufficient 
for practical purposes, although Sextus Empiri- 
cus, with his usual subtlety, carps at it as unphi- 
losophical, on the ground that time is infinitely 

divisible : " Ovk earl §e eXa-^iGTQG ypovoc' war, yap 
etc aireipov repverai." {Adv. Gramm. cap. vi.) 

We may represent one of these times by the 
sign ( w ) and two of them by ("). It was the num- 
ber of times which went to a space which de- 
termined the rhythm. Thus the iambic rhythm 
has three times ( w ") : the dactylic is TeTpaarjfioc 



230 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

( _ww ), the Peeonic Trev-racx^oc p vww ), the Ionic e£a- 
aii/uoc C~~). It follows from this definition of 
the component parts of rhythm that the iambic 
rhythm and the trochaic are the same, as each 
consists of three times ; so Cicero, " in trocheeo. 
qui temporibus et intervallis est par iambo." (Ora- 
tor, 57.) Metre consists not only in the number 
of the times, but in the order of the syllables, so 
that metre is rhythm, and something more. An 
iambic and a trochee, though of the same rhythm, 
are of different metres. 

" Omnis structura ac dimensio et copulatio 
vocum constat aut numeris (numeros pvO/novQ ac- 
cipi volo) aut ukrpy, id est, dimensione quadam. 
Quod etiam si constat utrumque pedibus, habet 
tamen non simplicem differentiam. Nam rhythmi, 
id est, numeri, spatio temporum constant ; me- 
tra etiam ordine : ideoque alterum esse quanti- 
tatis videtur, alterum qualitatis. 'Pu^oc aut par 
est, ut dactylus ; unam enim syllabam parem 
brevibus habet. Est quidem vis eadem et aliis 
pedibus, sed nomen illud tenet : (longam esse 
duorum temporum, brevem unius, etiam pueri 
sciunt) aut sescuplex ut paeon ; cujus vis est ex 
longa et tribus brevibus : quique ei contrarius, 
ex tribus brevibus et longa, vel alio quoque modo 
tempora tria ad duo relata sescuplum faciunt : 
aut duplex, ut iambus : nam est ex brevi et 
longa : quique est ei contrarius. Sunt hi et me- 
trici pedes : sed hoc interest, quod rhythmo in- 
differens est. dactylusne ille priores habeat breves, 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 231 

an sequentes. Terapus enim solum metitur, ut a 
sublatione ad positionem iisdem sit spatiis pe- 
dum. " (Quinctil. ix. 4. 45.) 

The definition of rhythm given by Dionysius 
is, that it is synonymous with foot : to S' avro 
kqXoj 7r6$a Kal pvOfxov. (xvii. 124.) This in truth 
agrees with the definition of Quinctilian, who 
says that both rhythm and metre consist of feet, 
and that it is indifferent to rhythm whether a 
dactyl has the short syllables at the beginning or 
the end : whence it is clear that he uses the term 
" pes" in the same extended sense in which Dio- 
nysius uses " ttovq :" when he means to confine 
it to metre, he adds the epithet " metricus ;" so 
that ~ ww and""" have the same rhythm, and con- 
tain the same foot : but they have not the same 
metrical foot, because metre consists also in the 
order of the syllables, and therefore, when we 
come to metre, we call the former a dactyl and 
the latter an anapest. It is important to bear in 
mind this nice, but palpable, distinction between 
rhythm and metre, which serves to explain many 
passages of the ancient writers on oratory and 
poetry. Take as an instance what Terentianus 
says of hexameter verse : — 

Hoc sat erit monuisse, locis quod quinque frequenter 
Jugem videmus inveniri dactylum. 
Sed non et sextum pes hie sibi vindicat unquam, 
Nisi quando rhythmum non metrum componimus. 
Namque metrum certique pedes numerusque coercent, 
Dimensa rhythmum continet lex temporum. 

(Apud Putsch. 2419.) 



232 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

It seems probable that the compositions of 
the dithyrambic poets were framed according to 
rhythm, and not according to metre : if so, per- 
haps in the expression of Horace, that Pindar is 
hurried on " numeris lege solutis" (Od. iv. 2), 
" numeris" may mean rhythm, and " lege" me- 
trical rule. Quinctilian complains of some scho- 
lars in his own time, who, acting on a system or 
theory of their own, forced some of the verses of 
lyric poets into various metres: " Sed in adeo 
molestos incidimus grammaticos, quam fuerunt, 
qui lyricorum qusedam carmina in varias men- 
suras coegerunt." (ix. 4. 53.) 

" A modis quibusdam, cantu remoto, soluta 
videatur oratio, maximeque id in optimo quoque 
eorum poetarum, qui Xvpacol a Grsecis nominan- 
tur ; quos cum cantu spoliaveris, nuda psene re- 
manet oratio." (Cicero, Orator, 55.) They would 
be reduced nearly to prose ; that is, they were 
without metre, but not without rhythm. 

The rhythm of poetry was marked both among 
the Greeks and Romans by physical gesture. In- 
deed the primary sense of the word pvQ/moc seems to 
have been gesture regulated or measured : Ty Se 

ttJg Kivrjcrewc ra^ei pvO/moc ovo/ua e'lrj. (Plato de Legibus, 

c. 2.) The simplest, and probably the earliest mode 
of marking the rhythm was by the foot, which was 
raised at the beginning of each space, and lowered 
again with a smart beat at the end of it. 

There is a remarkable passage in illustration 
of this manner of recitation in Plutarch's life 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 23.*{ 

of Demosthenes. Philip of Macedon, having 
crushed the liberties of Greece at Chaeronaea, 
crowned his success most fitly by a drunken de- 
bauch. In the height of his extravagant joy he 
insulted the bodies of the slain, and sung the 
preamble of the act which Demosthenes had pro- 
posed and carried in the Athenian assembly for 
declaring war against him, dividing it into mea- 
sures and beating time with his foot : — UapavriKa 

juei> ovv o <$>i\nnroQ em ty} viktq bia rr\v \apav e%vf3pi- 
gcic, Kctl Kto/naaac; eiri rove; veKpovc, /meOvivv rjSe tt\v 
apyi\v rov Ar^ioo-flei'ouc ^>j^)ta>taTQC, Trpoc 7r6Sa Siai- 

pWV Kai V7TOKpOV(i)V, 

Arjfjtoadevrjs Arjfjioadevovs Tlaiavtevs rct^' e?7re. 

I should think that noSa in this passage means 
the human foot, and Siaipwv means dividing the 
words into metre by raising the foot at the begin- 
ning, and depressing it again with a smart beat at 
the end of each metrical foot. This mode of 
marking time accounts in the most simple and 
natural manner for the term ttovq being applied 
to the component parts of poetry. Plutarch 
speaks of this mode of reciting with a beat of the 

foot as Opposed to singing : — Ext Se rwv ia/i/Be/wr/, 
to to. p.€v \eyeaOai irapa tt\v Kpovaiv, to. $e actecrtiai, 
Apy^iXo^ov (j)am KaraSeTfai, elO ovtw y^pr\(jaadai rove, 

rpayiKovc 7roirjrac,. (De Music a, s. 18. ed.Wyttenb. 
vol. v. p. 665.) 

This alternate raising and lowering of the foot 
was called by the Greeks " apsis kqI deaic," and 
by the Latins " sublatio et positio." " Uovc pev 



234 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

oitv eari fjLepoQ tow iravTOC pvOfAOv, Si ov tov oXov 
KaraXa/n^avo/uev' tovtov $e Lieprj Suw, apaic, Kai 6e- 

aia" (Aristid. Quintil. de Musica, lib. i. p. 34. ed. 
Meibom.) And afterwards, in his definition of 
a-ywyr), he tells us that the time or quantity may 
be extended or shortened, provided that we pre- 
serve the proportion between the apaic and Oemc : 

— (i Ayajyi) oe eari pvO/uiicrj, ^povtov rayoc r\ (3pa§v- 
ttjc* oiov, oraVj twv \6yu)v awtoLieviDV, ovc, al Qeaeic 
Troiovvrai 7rpoc tclc, apaeic,. SiaCpopioc, eKaarov ra ue- 
yeOr) Trpo(f)epio[xe9a." (Ibid. p. 42.) 

These expressions of " raising" and of " low- 
ering" lead naturally to the conclusion, that the 
primary meaning of " novc" and its component 
parts is to be traced to physical gesture. And 
accordingly the term " ictus," which is often 
applied by Latin writers to metre, must, I should 
think, have been in its primitive sense synony- 
mous with " positio ;" the blow taking place 
when the foot is brought down again to the 
ground. That the " ictus" was at least a mea- 
surement of time, appears from Quinctilian : — 
" Tempora etiam animo metiuntur, et pedum et 
digitorum ictu intervalla signant," &c. (ix.4. 51 .) 

Syllaba longa brevi subjecta, vocatur Iambus, 
Pes citus, unde etiam trimetris accrescere jussit 
Nomen iambeis, cum senos redderet r'ctus, 
Primus ad extremum similis sibi. 

(Horat. Ars Poet. 252.) 

There is some ambiguity in this passage, owing 
to the uncertainty of the meaning of the con- 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 235 

junction " cum." I understand Horace to mean, 
that the iambic took up so little time, that it was 
in process of time found convenient to take two 
feet together in the measurement of it, and so 
reduce the " ictus" to three; although (for so I 
would translate "cum") it had six feet, each of 
which was originally measured by itself, with its 
own arsis and thesis. His expression 

" Pollio regum 

Facta canit pede ter percusso," (Lib. i. Sat. 10. v. 42.) 

is no doubt to be understood of trimeter iambics. 

This rapid mode of scanning the iambic throws 
light upon the passage already quoted (p. 210) 
from Dionysius, who says that the first words of 
Plato's funeral oration should not in the delivery 
be scanned as iambic, in which case ''Epyw fiev t?| 
would be in some degree slurred over by being 
all taken together, but rather ''Epyw p,ev should be 
scanned as a bacchic, and fi/uuv as a spondee. 

Besides the beat with the foot, the time seems 
occasionally to have been marked by some move- 
ment of the hand or arm. This may have been 
introduced, when, from the size or structure of 
the theatre, part of the audience could not have 
seen the beat of the foot. The expression of 
Quinctilian, " strepitus digitorum," (ix. 4. 55.) 
seems to describe a snapping of the fingers. The 
definition which Aristides Quintilianus gives is : 

" ApaiQ juev ovv ecn (j)opa giojlicitog eiri to avio, 6e<nc, 

OC, €7Tt TO KCLTlt) TO.VTOV JLiepOVQ." (p. 31.) 

The arsis and thesis appear to have been 



236 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

regulated on very precise and technical princi- 
ples. In those feet indeed which consisted of an 
equal number of times, these times were equally 
divided between the arsis and thesis : in a spon- 
dee, for instance, the first syllable, consisting of 
two times, would be in the arsis, that is, would 
be pronounced while the foot was being raised, 
and the second, consisting also of two times, 
would be in the thesis. But what is the due 
proportion in a Cretic foot, which, consisting of 
five times, cannot be equally divided ? Are we to 
place three in the arsis and two in the thesis, or 
the contrary ? We learn from Terentianus Mau- 
rus that this depends upon the accent : — 

Romulos si nominemus Appulos aut Doricos, 
Sesquiplo metimur ipsum, quinque nam sunt tempora ; 
Nunc duo ante, tria sequuntur, nunc tribus reddes duo, 
Italum si quando mutat Graius accentus sonum. 
Appulos nam quando dico, tunc in apaei sunt duo ; 
Zojh-pdrrjv Graius loquendo reddet in Bevei duo. 

(Apud Putsch, p. 2414.) 

This passage is important, not only as confirming 
what Quinctilian says of the difference between 
the Greek and Latin accents, but as affording a 
complete refutation of the inference of Primatt 
from the passage of Quinctilian as to the accent 
of volucres : it is clear that the middle syllable 
of ^(DKpaTw does not by being accented become 
long, because it still remains of the same metre 
as Appulos. It further disproves Primatt's no- 
tion that the Greek accents were different in prose 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 237 

and in verse. His theory was, that Greek was 
read in verse by quantity, which he assumed to 
be incompatible with a reading by accent : if so, 
1,(jjKpaTr)v and Appulos being of the same quan- 
tity would be read in the same manner in verse, 
and consequently the Greek word would become 
a proparoxytone like Appulos, for that is what 
Primatt evidently means by a reading by quan- 
tity. Terentianus, however, tells us that Sw/cpa- 
rriv keeps its Greek accent, which makes no dif- 
ference in the quantity itself, for the times remain 
five, but has an influence on the division of the 
arsis and thesis. 

Why there should be this difference in the dis- 
tribution of the times between A'ppulos and 2w- 
KpuTtiv, it would not be easy for a modern scholar 
to give a good reason. In speaking of what are 
usually called common syllables, I have observed 
that Homer never begins a verse with Etc v'Sup. 
May not this be connected with the doctrine we 
are now discussing? May there not have been 
some mode of lengthening a short syllable in the 
arsis, which would have been difficult or inhar- 
monious in the thesis ? Perhaps if the whole pas- 
sage in the Scholiast of Hephaestion on al6\ov 
ocpiv had been preserved, we might have learned 
something on this subject. One thing is clear, 
that there was a musical nicety in the chronic 
metre of the ancients, of which we, whose ears 
are accustomed to accentual rhythm alone, can 
form no adequate conception. In speaking of 



238 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

the arsis and thesis, we must be careful to bear 
in mind the distinction between rhythm and me- 
tre. The gesture marked the former, but not the 
latter : ' ' Metrum in verbis modo, rhythmus etiam 
in corporis motu est." (Quinctil. ix. 4. 50.) 

And in the passage of Dionysius already quoted 
(p. 165), it is a violation, not of metre, but of 
rhythm, which is so perceptible and so distasteful 
to the audience. 

A similar passage of Cicero, though differently 
expressed, has I think the same meaning : — " In 
versu quidem theatra tota exclamant, si fuit una 
syllaba brevior aut longior. Nee vero multitudo 
pedes novit, nee ullos numeros tenet : nee illud 
quod offendit, aut cur, aut in quo offendat, intel- 
ligit." (Orator, 51 .) The substituting a long syl- 
lable for a short one, or the contrary, would spoil 
the rhythm, which the majority of the audience 
would be at once able to detect. For though 
ignorant of the technical mode of measuring by 
feet, and unable to predicate how many times 
each ought to contain, they would judge by 
the ear of any redundancy or deficiency in the 
quantity. It appears to have been necessary in 
recitation to mark with precision the <$ia<TTr)fxa, 
which was perhaps the interval or proportion 
by which one sound or syllable exceeded or fell 
short of the other : from whence the term $ia- 

arr}/JLariKri (j)(Dvrj, in Opposition to avveyric: — " Trjv 
/mev ovv avve-yji XoyiKriv elvai (pa/uev' SinXeyo^evajv 
yap rjiuwv, ovtojq r) (friovrj Kive7rai Kara roirov, u>q 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 239 

/m^afxov ^oKetv iGTCKjOai' Kara Se tt)v irepav, rjv bvo- 
fjiaCofxev StadTr/juaTi/crV, evavrtuG 7re(j)vK€ yiveaQai' 
aXXd yap 'iaraadai re So/ce?, ical iravrec, rov touto 
(paivo/mevov 7rote7v ov/ceri Xeyeiv cfraalv, aXX' aSett\" 

(Aristoxenus Harmonic. Element, lib. i. p. 9. ed. 
Meibom.) 

Aristides Quintilianus agrees more nearly with 
Quinctilian in saying, that the manner of reciting 
poetry was something between the (rwex^c and 

the §ia<JTr\fJLaTiKr). 

" H p.ev ovv avve^rjc eariv, -j $iaXey6p,e0a' /necrrf 
&e, y TaQ twv 7roti?/.iaTwi> avayvwaeic iroiovfxeda Sia- 
GTy)fxaTiKri oe, rj Kai to, fxkaov twV airXwv (pwvuiv ttogcl 
woiov/mevrj SiaarriiuaTa." (De Musica, lib. i. p. 7. 

ed. Meibom.) 

Perhaps the recitation of the iambic portion of 
a Greek tragedy may have been similar to the 
recitative in the modern Italian opera ; where 
sometimes the orchestra, for many bars together, 
is either entirely silent, or gives out only a key- 
note, the performer pronouncing the words so as 
to be clearly understood, and yet watching the 
time as marked by the leader of the band. For 
my own part, although unable to describe, and 
still less to imitate, the manner in which the 
Greeks marked the rhythm, I have no doubt but 
that the effect of it was grateful and harmonious. 

When I see the characteristics of the architec- 
ture, the sculpture, the poetry, the oratory, the 
history, and the philosophy of the Greeks to be 
simplicity and grandeur coupled with pure taste, 



240 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

and producing, like nature herself, variety with- 
out confusion ; why should I suppose that in the 
music and in the recitation of their poetry, the 
same degree of perfection was either not studied, 
or was studied without success ? But though Dio- 
nysius and Plutarch may not enable us to describe 
with precision what the manner of marking quan- 
tity in recitation was, they at any rate show what 
it was not : they at least ought to suggest to us, 
that when we read Greek poetry, not with pauses 
to mark the proportion between the syllables, 
but in one continued breath, as we do prose, 
without gesture, without beating of time, we 
ought not to be surprised or disappointed if we 
fail in marking the quantity so as to make the 
exact metrical proportion between the long and 
short syllables sensible to the ears of our audi- 
ence. I say the exact metrical proportion, be- 
cause the general distinction between long and 
short syllables may undoubtedly be preserved by 
dwelling longer on the former than on the latter. 
But the precision of the metre cannot have full 
justice done to it, unless we can revive those 
mechanical contrivances by which each verse 
was divided and measured. And yet we not only 
in practice read Greek poetry as if it were prose, 
but we are apt to be influenced by arguments 
which tacitly assume that there never was any 
other way of reciting it. I have been asked with 
an air of much triumph, how, if words were ac- 
cented according to the marks, I would read the 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 241 

famous line in the Odyssey which describes the 
stone of Sisyphus leaping down with repeated 
bounds from the top of the mountain. I readily 
admit that if we read that line continuously like 

prose, avric, eireira neSovSe KvXivSero Xaac avaiSrjC) 

we should materially impair the effect of it : but 
I ask, in my turn, for some authority that it ever 
was read like prose. For my own part, I have 
no difficulty in conceiving this line to have been 
recited or scanned with harmonious modulation 
with a beat of the foot, and with a slight pause 
between each dactyl, so as to give it the effect 
proposed by the poet, without at all interfering 
with the accent. It may be remarked, that the 
agreement of our mode of accentuation with the 
effect proposed by the poet in this line is purely 
accidental, from all the accents, as we lay them, 
happening to fall on the long syllables. In a 
similar line of Virgil, intending to represent the 
repeated bounds of a horse galloping, there hap- 
pens to be no such agreement : we lay the accents, 
as we are justified by Quinctilian's rules in laying 
them, thus : — 

Quadrupedante putrem sonitu quatit ungula campum. 

But I should think that the proper mode of re- 
citation did justice to Virgil's line as well as to 
Homer's, without laying the accent on the last 
syllables of " putrem" and " sonitu," or leaving 
" quatit" without any accent at all, as we must 
do, if we will lay the accent on long syllables 

R 



242 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

only. Let a modern scholar explain and exem- 
plify to me the Sia<rrr?/xa and the arsis and thesis, 
and I feel pretty confident I shall be able to show 
him the way to give each of these passages its 
proper effect by quantity alone, without doing 
any violence to the accent either in the Greek or 
in the Latin. 

Having hazarded these conjectures as to the 
principles on which the Greeks fixed the quantity 
of their language, and the manner in which they 
expressed it, I must remind the reader, that any 
mistakes which I may have made in this part of 
the subject will not necessarily invalidate the 
main argument. The quantity may have been 
established and preserved upon principles differ- 
ent from those which I have suggested, and yet 
it may still be true, that the accentual marks are 
correct, and that, in order to preserve the quan- 
tity, it is not necessary to misplace the accent. 
The object of the argument is not so much to show 
what the rhythm of the Greeks was, as what it was 
not. The whole doctrine of quantity is obscure, 
from the obvious reason that it is connected with 
music which has been lost ; and that it has for 
many centuries ceased to be the standard for 
measuring the feet of verses : but accent is very 
simple in its own nature, there being in truth 
scarcely any dispute respecting its effect or its 
pronunciation, but only respecting the syllables 
to which it ought to be applied. Now this being 
so, we ought, upon discovering any seeming in- 



QUANTITY IN POETRY. 24.'* 

consistency between the two, to reason from what 
we understand better, to what we understand less : 
but we reverse the process of reasoning ; from 
some qualities which we attribute to quantity, of 
which we know less, we obstinately affix certain 
other qualities to accent, of which we know more ; 
in spite of the clearest testimony of authors, who 
had the fullest knowledge of both, and who never 
hint at any discrepancy between them. 

Our difficulty, too, in understanding the sub- 
ject is materially aggravated by the defect in our 
education. Most of the modern scholars who 
have studied and taught what we call prosody, 
have been entirely ignorant of music. In Quinc- 
tilian's time this was looked upon as impossible. 
He tells us that without music his pupils could 
know nothing of metre or of rhythm. But it 
seems that either the ears of modern critics are 
naturally so correct as to give them an intui- 
tive apprehension of rhythm and metre without 
musical study, or that they have derived from 
their lucubrations in Hephaestion and Burney so 
philosophical a knowledge of the principles of 
music, that their eyes will serve to instruct them 
on these subjects without the assistance of their 

ears: — " AnoSei^iv & iGyypoT arriv tou ra\r}6rj Xeyeiv 
(pepeiv oiovrai, /naXiara /iiev rt]v auTwe avaiaOriGiav, 
<Lc irav, o, ri irep av avrovc, eK(pvyy, rovro /cat §r; 
7ravT(t)G avvnapKTOv ov iravreXwc, Kai a^priGTOv." (Plu- 
tarch, de Music. 38. ed. Wyttenbach., vol. v. 
p. 681.) 

r2 



244 QUANTITY IN POETRY. 

Finally, I must again remind the reader of the 
state of the question. I limit my endeavour to 
persuade him to read Saint Luke according to the 
marks. My conjectures as to quantity are only 
subsidiary to this argument, and are merely used 
by way of reply to an objection. I will suppose 
that I have not only been unsuccessful in giving 
the reader an idea how Greek poetry was recited, 
but that he rises with the same conviction with 
which he sat down, that the accents, as evinced 
by the marks, are inconsistent with poetical 
rhythm. Still I contend that this affords no 
reasonable ground for neglecting the marks in 
prose. If we end in the persuasion, not only that 
we ourselves cannot pronounce Trpayiiaruv in an 
iambic verse without spoiling the rhythm, but 
that the ancient Greeks could not do so, then 
the only reasonable conclusion is, that which 
Primatt has drawn, that in verse it must be read 
Trpay/jLaruv. This would only be to extend to metre 
generally what we have seen is sometimes true of 
choral music at least, that it prevents our distin- 
guishing the accents. We might contend that, 
as in the chorus in Orestes the circumflex of 
KTvireire is annihilated (rtfyaviorai), so, in the 
iambic, the acute on the middle syllable of wpay- 
paTuw is drowned or destroyed by the rhythm ; 
without disputing the authority of those authors 
who teach us generally that /cruTreTre is a prope- 
rispastic and TrpayjmaTiov a paroxytone. I do not 
agree with this theory as to the difference between 



OUR PRONUNCIATION VIOLATES QUANTITY. 245 

verse and prose, and I think I have shown grounds 
for distrusting it ; but I am sure it is much less 
unreasonable than to set our opinion against the 
clearest testimony of Greeks at a time when the 
language was in its highest state of purity, because 
we fancy we understand the modulation of their 
language better than they did themselves. 

OUR PRONUNCIATION VIOLATES QUANTITY. 

8. I have endeavoured to refute the charge 
that by pronouncing Greek according to the ac- 
centual marks we violate the quantity. But if 
there be any truth in the preceding observations 
on the manner of expressing the distinction be- 
tween long and short syllables, I shall be prepared 
not only to refute this charge, but to retort it. 
Our schools and universities do not teach us to 
dwell longer on the long syllables as such, either 
in Greek or in Latin, than on the short ones ; we 
dwell as long on Se as on Sr), on pater as on mater, 
on ofiov as on w/mov ; on oris, the genitive of os, as 
on oris, the dative plural of or a ; on cano (I sing), 
as on the dative of canus. We should remember, 
that in the rhythm of the orators as well as in the 
metre of the poets, to say nothing of common 
discourse, the quantity of words under three syl- 
lables is just as important as that of longer words ; 
many verses, of which the very first in the iEneid 
is one, being entirely composed of words of one 
and two syllables. And yet our boasted method 
of preserving the quantity by the due laying of 



246 OUR PRONUNCIATION VIOLATES QUANTITY. 

the accent, only pretends to do so in words of 
more than two syllables. But does it even do 
that '< I venture to reply, that it generally does 
not ; no, not even in the Latin, where I concede 
that we lay the accent on the proper syllable. 
For instance, how does an English scholar gene- 
rally read "famosus?" He lays the accent on 
the O, and in so doing he is right : but is that 
enough? He ought, especially if he is reciting 
oratory or poetry, to dwell as long, or nearly so, 
on the A as on the O, and twice as long, or nearly 
so, on each of those vowels as on the U. If he 
satisfies himself, as our learned men usually do, 
with laying the accent right, he leaves the ear to 
seek whether the A be long or short : nay, even 
to the O, though he thinks he has given it the 
right quantity, he has in truth only given the 
right accent ; and it will be by a process of rea- 
soning, and not by the beat upon our ears, that 
we shall be assured that he meant it to be long. 
We first of all assume that he is acquainted with 
the rule, that where the penultimate of a Latin 
word is long it must be accented ; and then, be- 
cause he gives it the accent, and for that reason 
only, we infer that he considers it as long. But 
suppose he had called it famosus, would not that 
have been a false quantity ? I answer, certainly 
not ; that is, not necessarily. Suppose a Greek 
conversant with the ancient principles of metre, 
but ignorant of the Latin language, and believing 
the accentuation of that language to be similar 



OUR PRONUNCIATION VIOLATES QUANTITY. 247 

to that of his own, to be required to pronounce 
" famosus," and to be told that the first two syl- 
lables of that word were long and the last short : 
he would raise the first syllable, and yet he would 
give to the first two syllables the long-drawn 
times which would express them as long ; that 
is, he would give the word the wrong accent, but 
the right quantity. So that the objection drawn 
from false quantity is not only untenable in itself, 
but may be generally retorted on those who use 
it. I say generally, because I admit that it is 
not necessarily so: we might in Latin preserve 
the true quantity as well as the true accent ; and 
we might in Greek preserve the true quantity, 
although we persisted in laying a false accent : 
all I contend is, that in general our schools, from 
their attention to accent alone, whether wrongly 
laid or rightly laid, and their entire neglect of 
giving long-drawn times to long syllables, do in 
general completely sacrifice that very quantity 
which they make so much boast of preserving. 
And that this is a great defect, or at least would 
be so to any ears who had ever heard the true 
pronunciation, seems very evident from many 
authorities cited, but particularly from the ana- 
lysis of Plato's oration by Dionysius. How does 
the modern scholar pronounce the opening sen- 
tence? He reads epyy in such a way that the 
ear cannot distinguish it from epyo, thereby 
turning the bacchic of Dionysius into a dactyl : 
rjfuv he makes virtually a trochee ; the ra vpoari\ y 



248 OUR PRONUNCIATION VIOLATES QUANTITY. 

which should be rather a cretic than an anapest, 
he makes rather a tribrach than either ; as to the 
pauses which are to make the last syllables of 
e)(ou<H and of <j<pi<jiv long, they never entered into 
his imagination. Then, again, in the line cited 
from Sophocles, 

£2 (piXrarov fj.vrjfie'iov d.i>dpw7r(jjv efxoi, 

he pronounces Q as if it were O, and {xv^fxelov 
as if it were pvefiveiov ; and though he assigns to 
avQptoTTw the right accent for wrong reasons, he 
entirely deprives that word, at least in the last 
two syllables, of its due time. Where are the 
M stable spondees" which the poet has taken so 
much pains to build, and which perhaps required 
six or seven rehearsals, before the actor (for ac- 
tresses in those days there were not), could give 
them effect to the satisfaction of Sophocles ? 
Where are Plato's ava |3e /3Xr? juevoi Kat fipaSelc \p6voi, 
so studiously framed to draw tears from his au- 
dience, and framed in vain, unless dwelt upon 
in the recitation ? Perhaps if a man who had ever 
heard those passages properly recited, could hear 
our manner of dealing with them, it might pro- 
duce on him much the same effect as if a lover 
of the violin should hear a New Zealand er per- 
form some favourite piece of Paganini upon the 
drum. 

It is certainly strange that modern scholars, 
though inattentive to real quantity, and ignorant 
of the proper mode of reciting chronic metre, 
should have been able to compose Greek and 



OUR PRONUNCIATION VIOLATES QUANTITY. 218 

Latin verses with considerable correctness. But 
I apprehend the solution of this fact, however 
unwilling we may be to admit it, is, that our 
composition of classical verses is almost entirely 
mechanical. 

When a boy composes such a verse as 

Insignemque canas Neptunum vertice cano, 

how is he guided to the proper collocation of the 
words ? Not by his ear, certainly, for that would 
be struck precisely in the same manner if he wrote 
it 

Insignemque cano Neptunum vertice canas ; 

No ; he learns from books that the first of cano 
(I sing) is short, and the first of canus (hoary) is 
long. Having so used them, their respective 
quantity is stored up as a fact in his memory, 
and by degrees he remembers them so well, that 
when he sees either of them used in a wrong 
place, he thinks it offends his ear, while in truth 
it only offends his understanding. But I appre- 
hend a Roman boy's process of composition would 
be quite different. Having been used from his 
cradle to hear the first syllable of canus take up 
about twice as much time as that of cano, such a 
verse as 

Insignemque cano Neptunum vertice canas 

would really hurt his ear, because in the second 
foot the thesis would be complete before the syl- 
lable was expressed, and he would have a time 
or at)iieiov too much ; and in the sixth he could 
not fill up the times of the arsis without giving 



350 OUR PRONUNCIATION VIOLATES QUANTITY. 

to the syllable a drawling sound, which would be 
both unusual and offensive. 

I have said that our composition of classical 
verses is almost entirely mechanical. It is not, 
however, quite so ; the mechanical process being 
aided by a certain accentual rhythm, which, 
though extremely imperfect, serves as some guide 
to the ear, particularly where it is most needed, 
namely, at the close of the verse. A hexameter, 
for instance, is closed by a dactyl and spondee ; not 
that we have, musically or metrically speaking, 
the slightest notion of either : but when we talk 
of a dactyl and spondee, we mean five syllables so 
disposed, that an accent falls on the first and 
fourth, as " magnus Ulysses," " Sloe OSvaaevc:" 
but now make OSvaaevc an oxytone ; this to a 
Greek or Roman ear would have made no dif- 
ference, or rather, only a pleasing variety, but to 
us it spoils the verse, because it destroys that ac- 
centual rhythm, which is the only rhythm we 
have. It is true that the accentual rhythm is oc- 
casionally destroyed, even in Latin, by such ter- 
minations as 

restituit rem 
ridiculus mus ; 

but these occur too seldom to disturb our general 
notions of versification. 

The pentameter is closed by four syllables, 
of which the first and third are commonly ac- 
cented, as "posse putes ;" though this again 
is occasionally destroyed by such a termination 



OUR PRONUNCIATION VIOLATES QUANTITY. 251 

Nor is this accentual rhythm our 
only assistance in classical versification. The 
modern scholar who has read Virgil and Ovid 
with attention is enabled to imitate them suc- 
cessfully in their csesura or break. What clause 
or foot of a verse ought to end with a sentence 
or with a word, cannot be indifferent in any 
poetry ; but in Latin and Greek we know that 
particular attention was paid to it. This subject 
has been so carefully studied by modern scholars, 
that it may perhaps be doubted whether Porson 
did not know the rules for the csesura as well as 
Euripides ; though he knew less of the reasons 
for them than the lowest mechanic who saw the 
plays of Euripides from the two-obolus gallery. 

And before we take too much credit for the 
correctness of modern versification, we should 
bear in mind that we are our own judges. When 
we say that a scholar's verses are Virgilian, we 
mean that they read like Virgil to us, who read 
Virgil ill. What would Virgil say ? is a question 
which ought sometimes to be asked, though it 
never can be answered. 



252 



CHAPTER V. 

1. ALTERATION OP MARKS. 2. CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

ALTERATION OF MARKS. 

1. I might perhaps have availed myself of the 
manner in which I have found it convenient to 
state the question respecting the Greek accents, 
so as to avoid altogether any historical inquiry 
into the subject. I might have rested satisfied 
with the grammatical proof which has been ob- 
tained of the correctness of the marks in the 
manuscript of Theophilus. I am not called upon 
to answer any general observations on the cor- 
ruption of accents or on the vitiation of marks. 
I am contented to show a certain number of 
marks on a given passage of a given manuscript, 
and to bring proof from writers of unquestionable 
authority that those marks are in accordance 
with the pronunciation of well-educated men in 
the second century ; for though I do not find the 
very same words commented upon, the comments 
on words of precisely the same nature and for- 
mation may fairly have the same authority as if 
the writers had happened to give as instances the 
very same words which we meet with in Saint 



ALTERATION OF MARKS. 253 

Luke. ETreic^Trep, for instance, though apparently 
discrepant from the general rule, is borne out by 
what Apollonius says of a similar accentuation of 
Kadori ; TroXXot, indeed, does not happen to be 
mentioned as an oxytone by any ancient writer, 
but that KaXrj was so, I learn from Athenseus, and 
therefore am justified in assuming that Theophi- 
lus was correct in his mark, till the contrary can 
be shown. Any doubt which we may at first 
entertain as to the correctness of the mark of 
eireyeipvaav on account of the penultimate being- 
long is set at rest by Herodian, who tells us that 
none but barbarians say )3ouXw/xat. To avara^aa- 
Oai a double objection may be made, that it ought 
to be paroxytone, either because the penultimate 
is long, or because the last syllable is so. The 
first is answered by our finding rvpawoc, used as 
a proparoxytone by Quinctilian, and the second 
by the Aplarapyoi of Apollonius. Airiy^aiv is really 
questionable, because what Herodian says of verbs 
may perhaps not be applicable to nouns ; and we 
learn that Homer pronounced epri^oc with a cir- 
cumflex on the penultima. But we know from 
the same authority that the Attics made it a pro- 
paroxytone, and we are very unreasonable if we 
wish to speak Greek better than the Attics. For 
irep\ we have the authority of Apollonius, for 
though Kara happens to be the word mentioned, 
his disquisition on the ava^i^nafioc, shows that all 
the prepositions of two syllables were oxytoned 
when they stood before the noun. And not to 



'234 ALTERATION OF MARKS. 

fatigue the reader by going further, i may say 
that I have produced undoubted authority for the 
marks of all the twenty verses. I am then jus- 
tified in regulating my pronunciation accordingly : 
the rest of the manuscripts in the British Museum, 
or in all Europe, may be as faulty as you please ; 
I maintain my proposition by sustaining the cor- 
rectness of Theophilus. I have thought it con- 
venient to put the argument into this shape, to 
show, that if we have grammatical proof for the 
existing marks, as I certainly think we have most 
abundantly, the many loose statements which we 
find in the works of our opponents as to the cor- 
ruption of accents are really not entitled to any 
consideration. There are the marks to speak for 
themselves : if they are inconsistent with the pro- 
nunciation of the pure ages, no doubt they have 
been corrupted ; if they agree with them, all con- 
jectures that they must have been corrupted by 
such and such causes fall to the ground at once. 

But as a general complaint has been made by 
many modern writers of the corruption of the 
Greek accents, as such complaint seemed at first 
sight to be borne out by the lamentably low state 
of modern Grecian literature, and therefore cre- 
ated a prejudice against the marks from the very 
circumstance of their representing the pronun- 
ciation now prevailing in Greece, I shall make a 
few observations on the subject. 

Vossius begins with a general reflection on the 
short date of languages : — " Frustra simus, si id, 



ALTERATION OF MARKS. 2.55 

quod omnes norunt, velimus docere, quam nempe 
fluxa et lubrica res sit sermo humanus, quamque 
nullae usquam terrarum reperiantur linguae, quae 
vel ad pauca saecula integrse et inviolatae persti- 
terint." (p. 15.) Now in answer to this general 
proposition, I only ask the reader to study a pas- 
sage of Homer, and then one from Apollonius of 
Rhodes, to compare a chapter from Plato with 
one from Lucian. What avail against such evi- 
dence any general aphorisms on the short du- 
ration of language ? aphorisms, which if used 
upon other subjects as they have been on this, 
would prove that the Chinese empire cannot have 
lasted long, and that the pyramids of Egypt were 
most likely built by the Saracens. Our argu- 
ment here turns not upon particular words or 
letters, of which Horace's maxim is true : — 

Multa renascentur, quae jam cecidere, cadentque, 
Quae nunc sunt in honore, 

but upon a supposed fundamental change of all 
the accents of a perfect and wide-spread lan- 
guage. 

It is necessary here again to remind the reader 
of the distinction between accents and accentual 
marks ; because it is from the want of this di- 
stinction that some writers have unconsciously 
drawn a large portion of their fallacies, and have 
been enabled to make, with some appearance 
of candour, the most sweeping of their asser- 
tions. To state that since the time of Greek 
purity the accent has been corrupted, and that 



25(5 ALTERATION OF MARKS. 

since the time of Aristophanes of Byzantium the 
use of the marks has been corrupted, are two di- 
stinct propositions, resting on different grounds, 
and to be supported and refuted by totally different 
arguments. Many of the observations of Henni- 
nius as to the change of the use of " accents " have 
no meaning, unless he intends thereby to infer that 
the marks have been misplaced by the ignorance 
of those who transcribed them. It is indifferent 
to this theory whether the later Greeks did or 
did not corrupt their accents, that is, their pro- 
nunciation. These critics would say, we will not 
pronounce Saint Luke according to the marks in 
the manuscript of Theophilus, because we are 
persuaded that those marks, or at least as many 
of them as militate against our theories, have 
been corrupted by the ignorance of transcribers. 
Now an answer to this theory has been antici- 
pated in the earlier part of this essay, in which 
the agreement of all the manuscripts has been 
pointed out. Laying aside for a moment all the 
authorities which have been cited from critics and 
grammarians, supposing Dionysius and Quinc- 
tilian had been lost, how is it possible to believe 
that so many copyists should invariably have 
made the same mistakes ? This alone would per- 
haps be a sufficient refutation of such a theory : 
but a much stronger refutation remains in the 
pronunciation of the modern Greeks. Admitting 
it to be possible that all the copiers of manuscripts 
should have hit upon the same blunders, still this 



ALTERATION OF MARKS. 257 

could have had no effect on the pronunciation of 
those who never saw the manuscripts, and could 
not have read them if they had. I should think 
no one would distinctly affirm the pronunciation 
of whole districts and islands inhabited by illite- 
rate husbandmen and fishermen to have been at 
first correct, so long as Aristophanes and other 
great grammarians preserved the integrity of the 
marks, and to have been afterwards corrupted by 
blindly following the marks of ignorant tran- 
scribers. And yet this is the only theory recon- 
cileable with the doctrine, that the marks were 
altered by the copyists ; for with these marks, so 
altered, if they have been altered, do the accents 
of the modern Greeks, illiterate as well as learned, 
correspond in a very remarkable manner. It is 
impossible to convey by the pen the effect of this 
agreement, when heard, for the first time, by a 
person accustomed to write the accentual marks. 
It carries at once the strongest conviction, that 
they are speaking the very language of their 
forefathers ; and the more illiterate the Greek is, 
whom you hear so pronouncing his native tongue, 
the more forcible is the conviction that by tradi- 
tion alone can he have learned this pronunciation. 
He calls it irpay/uaTUiv, because he has heard his 
mother call it so; and TroXXot, because he, poor 
fellow ! has never been taught, as we have, to 
write it as if it were an oxytone, and read it as if 
it were not : and if you take him to carry your 
game-bag, he calls out, on seeing a woodcock, 

s 



258 ALTERATION OF MARKS. 

M ISou, i$ov ! " in a tone which by no means leads 
you to suppose that he is thinking of Aristophanes 
of Byzantium. This agreement of his pronuncia- 
tion with the marks extends to the exceptions as 
well as to the rules. He pronounces KareaKevaafxe- 
vov as well as ec\>£ei>. If the copyists had blindly 
followed the rule, that, where the last syllable 
is short, the accent is to be on the antepenulti- 
mate, they would have marked the word Kare- 
GKeva<Tpevov. If mere negligence or ignorance had 
been their guide, we should have found the mark 
on one syllable in one manuscript, and on another 
in others. Their all agreeing to place it on the 
penultimate is a strong proof that they had a rea- 
son for so doing : and the only good, the only 
probable reason, is, that the people of their time 
did lay the accent on the penultimate. Any doubt 
on the subject is cleared up in a moment, when 
we hear the modern Greeks so lay it, as they in- 
variably do. The same thing may be said of the 
opposite exception of throwing back the accent 
further than the general rule would allow : we 
have the same uniformity of manuscripts for 
yevopevoi, and the same confirmation from the 
modern Greeks, who always make it a propar- 
oxytone. And generally it may be said, that the 
accentuation of the Greeks of the present day 
confirms the authenticity of the marks in the 
manuscripts to a remarkable degree ; supporting 
them in their general rules, and following them 
in their exceptions. Indeed there are very few 



ALTERATION OF MARKS. 259 

words in which my ear has detected a variation 
between the marks in manuscripts and the modern 
accents in well-educated Greeks. I might give in- 
stances in the words ov^l and vaiyl, which are now 
pronounced 6'^t and vaiaici. That this pronuncia- 
tion is at least not barbarous, we may collect from 

ApolloniuS : M AvaXoytorepa re ra roiavra e\r\ ev 
(3apeia ravei, VX l t val X l > T0 ^ °^X/ o^vvopevov," (De 

Adverb, in Bekker Anecdot. Grac. p. 573.) The 
moderns pronounce arafyvXri (grapes) instead of 
(TTcKJyvXri, as we find it marked. There is this 
further variation in the speech of uneducated 
persons, that they are apt to carry the accent of 
the nominative to the oblique cases, without 
regard to the quantity of the last syllable, as 
avOpvirovG and avdpujirwv. Henninius quotes Si- 
mon Portus as an authority that some among 
the modern Greeks pronounce ayuorarri and a§i- 
kovc, and he considers this as a relic of the ancient 
accentuation, (s. 160.) I doubt whether aSucova 
is ever pronounced, except by those who also say 
avOpwTTovc. Whether there may not be vestiges 
of what Henninius calls the ancient accentuation 
in some parts of Greece I know not. This accen- 
tuation is in truth no other than the Latin, which 
has probably borrowed some of its accents from 
the iEolic. Now we know that the iEolians used 
in some words a different accent from the Attic. 
I have never visited any of the Greek islands 
which were colonized by iEolians. I should not, 
even at this distance of time, be surprised to find 

s2 



260 ALTERATION OF MARKS. 

the inhabitants there throwing back the accent 
so as to make grave the last syllable of many 
words used as oxytones in the rest of Greece. 
Indeed it would be highly interesting to a scholar 
well-skilled in the distinctions of the different dia- 
lects of Greece, to inquire, whether any of these 
distinctions still subsist, or whether they have 
been gradually absorbed by the Attic, which be- 
came generally prevalent. The modern Greeks 
still preserve the distinction as to those verbal 
adjectives, which, when used in a passive sense, 
follow the general rule, but when in an active 
sense, have the accent on the penultimate, as 
OeoroKoc, the offspring of a Deity, OeoroKoc, the 
mother of a Deity. This last epithet, which is 
applied by the Greeks to the Virgin Mary, is of 
too classical an origin to have been the produce 
of modern times. In the manuscript of Theo- 
dorus, written in 1292, is a list of feasts, among 
which is the birthday of the Virgin, " H yewrjaic 
ttjg virepTamc, fleo-ro/cou," for so it is unquestion- 
ably to be read, though abridged to " vwc Q'kov." 
There is an ancient monastery in the island of 
Corfu, dedicated to the ui/^At) OeoroKoc, or as the 
common people usually call it, OeoroKri. One of 
the noblest and most ancient families of that 
island is that of Oeoro/a. See what a body of 
evidence this affords against an assertion, that 
the word used to be, and ought to be, deoroKoc, 
whether used in a passive or an active sense, 
that ignorant copyists first altered the mark, and 



ALTERATION OF MARKS. 261 

from thence the people learned to alter the ac- 
cent. But their agreement with the manuscripts 
upon points which have attracted the notice and 
employed the pens of grammarians, however cu- 
rious and striking, does not carry perhaps, after 
all, more practical conviction than the use of the 
commonest words : their courteous salutation, 
KnX yfxepa, their cheerful fiaXiara, when asked to 
show the road, go further than an octavo volume 
to persuade one that they are using expressions 
handed down from their fathers. Then again the 
numerals, which, from their constant use from the 
games of the boy to the transactions of maturer 
age, are perhaps oftener pronounced, and trans- 
mitted by a closer tradition than any other words 
in the language ; we here see that variety of ac- 
cent, which has been pointed out as peculiar to 

the language, eVac, $uw, rpelc, Tecraapec, Trevre, efq, 

€7TTa, oktw, Gwka y $eica. It has been remarked by 
antiquarians, that the games of a people are often 
handed down by an unbroken tradition from very 
remote times. I have seen Corfiote peasants sit- 
ting before the doors of a wine-shop, playing at 
a kind of drafts with pebbles on a board : I do 
not presume to fix the antiquity of this game ; 
but it bears a strong resemblance to the descrip- 
tion which Homer gives of the pastime of the 
suitors of Penelope : — 

JleaaoiffL 7rpo7rdpoide dvpdojv Qvp.6v erepTvov, 

H/zevoi. (Od. A. 107.) 

If one person were to affirm that this game is 



262 ALTERATION OF MARKS. 

three thousand years old, and another, that in 
Homer's time the scores were called eVTa, oktw, 
and ewea, I might think both the assertions some- 
what rash, but I am sure that the former has much 
more probability on its side than the latter. 

While on the subject of modern language, I 
may observe, that what Quinctilian says of the 
variety of the Greek and the monotony of the 
Latin accent, is not less strongly confirmed to 
this hour by the Italian than by the Greek pro- 
nunciation. Still does every word in the Italian 
language, with few exceptions, end with a grave 
accent. Most, if not all, of the exceptions are 
caused by a cutting off or contraction of the last 
syllable, necessity standing for necessitate, and 
virtu for virtute. The accent of words above 
two syllables seems still to depend on the rule 
handed down from their ancestors : tirano, tirdn- 
no, Capua, Sorrento. The only exceptions I ever 
observed were the words O'tranto and Tdranto, 
the inhabitants whereof, in the names of their 
native cities, lay the accent on the first syllable : 
a peculiarity which would have gone a long way 
towards convincing me of their Grecian origin, 
even although history had been silent on the 
subject. Surely facts like these ought to make 
us slow in giving assent to a sweeping assertion, 
that a whole people has been misled by the blun- 
ders of copyists into altering the system and 
genius of the accentuation of their ancestors. 



263 



CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 



2. Enough, perhaps, has been said to show 
the absurdity of supposing that the accentual 
marks have been corrupted by later copyists. 
And in truth, none of the writers in question 
have attributed the corruption of the accent to 
this cause singly : but as the ignorance and care- 
lessness of later grammarians and copyists are 
enumerated among the causes of corruption, it is 
of importance to show that no such cause can 
have had any extensive agency. The only theory 
then, which can be supported in opposition to the 
manuscript of Theophilus, is, that since the time 
of purity the accents themselves have been cor- 
rupted. And this theory admits, and indeed 
generally supposes, that the marks are so far 
faithful, that they represent the pronunciation of 
the time when they were made. Now a person 
who maintains this theory, and gives it as a rea- 
son for not pronouncing the words as they are 
marked in the manuscript, virtually affirms that 
Plato and Demosthenes pronounced ttoXXoi, npay- 
/uLarojv and eSo£ey, and that the contrary pronun- 
ciation has been introduced by corruption. And 
now let us ask, to what are we to attribute this 
corruption ? The cause most commonly assigned, 
and into which the others seem virtually to re- 
solve themselves, is, contact with other nations. 
To deny that the Greeks, from their earliest times, 
were a people addicted to navigation and to com- 



264 CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

merce, would be to overlook the plainest evi- 
dences of their history, as well as the authentic 
traditions of their numerous and distant colonies. 
And in later times, besides their intercourse with 
foreigners on foreign shores, they saw on their 
own soil strangers from various countries, whom 
they received as guests, called in as allies, or 
submitted to as conquerors. 

Dr. Gaily says, "It is no improbable conjec- 
ture to suppose, that a corrupt manner of pro- 
nouncing some words in the Greek language was 
occasioned by Alexander's expedition into Asia. 
His army might have learned to accent some 
words according to the manner of the Asiatics ; 
and as it is reasonable to think that many Asiatics 
went with them when they returned into Greece, 
these, we may be sure, were very faulty in this 
respect. Upon the death of Alexander two great 
empires were formed out of his conquests : one in 
Egypt under Ptolemy, and another in Asia under 
Seleucus. In both these kingdoms the pronun- 
ciation of the Greek language must have been 
greatly corrupted ; and this corruption must have 
infected^Greece itself, considering the intercourse 
and correspondence which was carried on between 
Greece and the two new kingdoms. Alexander 
died in the first year of the 1 14th Olympiad ; upon 
which Ptolemy immediately began his reign, as 
Seleucus did his twelve years afterwards. In the 
first year of the 153rd Olymp., i. e. 156 years 
after the death of Alexander, Paulus iEmilius 



CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 265 

conquered Greece and made it a Roman pro- 
vince, by which the genuine pronunciation and 
accentuation of the Greek language must have 
been further corrupted." (p. 128.) This is a spe- 
cimen of the ease with which a favourite theory 
may be assumed by an author by no means de- 
ficient in learning or acuteness. Dr. Gaily cites 
no authority to prove that the expedition of Alex- 
ander, and the foundation of the empires of his 
successors, had in fact the effect of corrupting 
the language ; nor is it easy to see how such an 
effect could have been produced. Alexander led 
thirty thousand men, the greater part probably 
Macedonians, to the banks of the Indus ; and 
though the news of his success no doubt drew 
after him great numbers of European as well as 
Asiatic Greeks, attracted by the search of mili- 
tary adventure, of commerce, or of knowledge, 
this was only a new direction to migration, and 
not an alteration in the habits of the people. 
Wherever they went they carried with them a 
strong spirit of nationality, and a contempt for 
barbarians, which the recent victories of Alex- 
ander were not likely to diminish. And of all 
their national distinctions, there was not one of 
which they were more proud than their language. 
Why then should they learn so hastily to corrupt 
it by the introduction of barbarous phrases and 
accents? Was the Spanish language corrupted 
by the conquest of America ? or have the Eng- 
lish learned, since the extension of their empire 



266 CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

in Hindostan, to pronounce their own tongue with 
Persian or Hindoo accents ? And with respect to 
the Greeks themselves, it may be asked, how they 
were employed during the time when they were 
bringing their language to that exquisite degree 
of perfection which it had attained in the time of 
Demosthenes ? They were engaged in commerce, 
in navigation, in founding colonies among nations 
whose pronunciation must have been as faulty, 
if differing from Greek be a fault, as that of the 
Egyptians or Persians, and keeping up constant 
communication with those colonies. The king- 
doms founded by the Macedonian soldiers were 
only new colonies ; nor is it probable, in the ab- 
sence of direct evidence, that they should have 
had an effect on the mother-country, which was 
confessedly not produced by several previous cen- 
turies of extensive colonization. Neither is it by 
any means clear that the foundation of the king- 
doms of Seleucus and Ptolemy must have had 
the effect of corrupting the Greek language at all. 
Is it not more reasonable to suppose, that so con- 
siderable an extension of the countries in which it 
was spoken, and that, too, just at the time when it 
had reached its perfection, would have a material 
effect in preserving it from corruption ? In Egypt 
particularly, the munificent patronage of literary 
men, and the foundation of the Alexandrian li- 
brary, seem likely means, if not of improving the 
language, at least of preserving it from corruption. 
Alexandria under the Ptolemies produced a series 



CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 267 

of grammarians, who discussed with much nicety 
and industriously recorded the principles and con- 
struction of the Greek language. 

As to the corruption which is supposed to have 
been occasioned by the conquest of Greece by the 
Romans, Dr. Gaily cites no authority for it, nor 
am I aware of a single cotemporary writer who 
notices it. The Greeks, though inferior in arms, 
had the consolation of thinking themselves far 
superior in arts and language to their conquerors, 
and of being thought so by their conquerors them- 
selves. The result was, that the Romans soon 
gave themselves up to the study of Greek so 
zealously, that no one was thought to have any 
claim to literature, who did not understand that 
language. They whose circumstances enabled 
them to travel, did not consider their education 
finished till they had visited Greece to perfect 
themselves in the language. In Cicero's time 
the study of Greek was universal : ' ' Nam si 
quis minorem glorias fructum putat ex Graecis 
versibus percipi, quam ex Latinis, vehementer 
errat : propterea, quod Graeca leguntur in omni- 
bus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus, exiguis 
sane, continentur." (Cicero pro Archia.x.) When 
we consider that these expressions were addressed 
to a Roman audience, there is less reason to sus- 
pect them of exaggeration. And there are abun- 
dant proofs that this cultivation of Grecian lite- 
rature went on increasing long after Cicero's 
time. Livy says, " Habeo auctores vulgo Ro- 



268 CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

manos pueros, sicut nunc Graecis, ita Etruscis 
Uteris erudiri solitos." (ix. 36.) Quinctilian re- 
commends that a boy should learn Greek before 
Latin : but he adds, " Non tamen hoc adeo su- 
perstitiose velim fieri, ut diu tantum loquatur 
Graece aut discat, sicut plerisque moris est." 
(I. 1, 13.) That the Roman ladies had acquired 
a taste for the Greek language we learn from 
Juvenal, who remarks, with more force than de- 
licacy, that they adopted the fashions and customs 
of Greece in every action of their lives. Now all 
this seems to be so far from being likely to cor- 
rupt the Greek language, that its obvious ten- 
dency is the other way. We learn much by 
teaching others ; the Greek rhetoricians and 
grammarians who presided in the schools where 
foreigners were taught, would have their atten- 
tion turned to the niceties of their own pronun- 
ciation, accents, and syntax, in a manner which 
could scarcely have happened between one Greek 
and another, who had learned all these things 
from their mothers. And accordingly we find 
that all the valuable treatises, from which our 
grammatical knowledge of Greek is derived, were 
written after those events, from which Dr. Gaily 
dates the commencement of its corruption. Be- 
sides, when we come to the particular alterations 
in the accent which we are now discussing, Dr. 
Gally's theory, as far as it applies to the Romans, 
becomes preposterous. According to this theory, 
the Greeks, before thev submitted to the Romans, 



CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 201) 

or even knew of their existence, pronounced ?roX- 
Aoi, eSo£ev, and Trpay^artju, which exactly corre- 
sponded with the accentuation of the Romans 
themselves, and afterwards they learned from 
their conquerors e'Sogey and 7rpayimaT(vv } sounds 
quite aliene from the Latin tongue, and stranger 
still, TroXXot, from a people who never had an 
oxytone disyllable in their own language. 

Dr. Gaily says, "I am apt to think that the 
present use of accents was introduced into the 
Greek language, when conquest and commerce, 
and other methods of intercourse, brought fo- 
reigners into Greece ; for then each was naturally 
led to pronounce Greek according to the accents 
which prevailed in his mother-tongue. For in- 
stance, he whose mother-tongue abounded in 
anapests (as the French, which hath no tri- 
syllable that maketh a dactyl,) would naturally 
have placed the accent upon the last syllable, 
and made raweivoQ an oxytone, though the pe- 
nultimate is long by nature. And he whose 
mother-tongue abounded in dactyls (as the Eng- 
lish, which hath no trisyllable that maketh an 
anapest,) would naturally have placed the accent 
upon the antepenultimate, and pronounced tv- 
xfsaaQai with the accent upon the first, though the 
last is long by nature, and the penultimate by 
position." (p. 105.) Such gratuitous assumptions 
may pass current with those who have not studied 
the subject, but will scarcely have any weight 
with those who know that all the varieties in the 



270 CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

Greek accents were discussed at a time when the 
language was in its full vigour and beauty. Ca- 
nons are laid down respecting them, some of them 
founded in principle, and some merely arbitrary. 
Different opinions are entertained as to the ac- 
cents of words and classes of words ; some scho- 
lars following one great critic, and some adhering 
to another : but the whole showing beyond con- 
troversy that the code of accents is a Greek code, 
established by Greek grammarians, for Greek 
reasons, and that there is not any necessity, nor 
indeed any ground, for recurring to foreign na- 
tions to account for the variety of the Greek 
accents. 

The Goths who invaded the Greek empire did 
not make a settlement there ; their hasty ravages 
could have had no more effect in corrupting the 
language of the Greeks, than the Cossacks in 
1814 in changing that of the French. The two 
fatal blows which laid low what was left of pure 
taste and literature by the successive invasions 
of the Crusaders and the Turks are out of the 
question, because the corruption, if such it be, 
which we are now discussing, was complete before 
these events took place. In a word, none of the 
great revolutions to which the Greek empire has 
been subjected seem to be sufficient to account 
for a change in the accentuation of the people ; 
particularly as the permanent and all-pervading 
influence of the greatest of all these revolutions, 
the Roman conquest, would have had a directly 



CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 271 

contrary effect from that which Dr. Gaily and 
Henninius suppose. 

It may be farther observed, that the influence 
of strangers, if it produced any effect, must have 
produced it unequally : it must have operated 
strongly on the capital, which was naturally the 
centre of attraction to the great mass of strangers, 
much less on the remote provinces, and scarcely 
at all on the numerous islands of the Ionian and 
iEgean seas. So that the corruptions which by 
that means crept into the accents of the inhabit- 
ants, and from thence into the marks of the 
writers of manuscripts, would have been of va- 
rious kinds, according to the different languages 
from which they were taken, more plentiful in 
those written in the capital than in the provinces, 
and very rare in the remote and sequestered 
islands of the Archipelago, some of which must 
have given birth to some literary men, but all of 
which probably had churches and priests, and 
copies or extracts from the Scriptures many cen- 
turies before the Turkish invasion. But here 
again we appeal to the uniformity of the marks 
in the manuscripts, which show that the corrup- 
tion, if it is one, is universal ; for that all the 
extant manuscripts were written at Constanti- 
nople, and none in the remote provinces, seems 
in the highest degree improbable. Besides, it 
may be questioned whether any intercourse with 
foreigners would have the effect here attributed 
to it ; and whether it would not be easier to root 



272 CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

out a language entirely, than to retain the lan- 
guage and alter the accentuation of it. As far as 
we are able to judge from experience, it would 
seem that an intercourse with foreigners tends 
rather to bring in new words than to alter the 
accentuation of the old. We probably owe the 
word " realm" to our Norman invaders ; but it 
would require something more than the assertion 
of an ingenious critic to persuade us that our 
Saxon ancestors called it "kingdom," and that 
our laying the accent on the first syllable of that 
word is a corruption introduced by our inter- 
course with foreigners. The Greek language has 
admitted many words from foreigners ; military 
terms (as irpaiTwpiov) , legal (as /cwSi/a'AAoc), terms 
for modern inventions (as rovcpeici, a gun) : but 
it is as easy for a classical scholar to distin- 
guish these from Hellenic words, as it is for us 
to discriminate between a Norman and a Saxon 
word. I admit that such terms as these would 
have been considered by the old Greek gramma- 
rians as barbarisms : " Aeyo/iev Se fiapfiaplZeiv Kal 
tovq aWoCpvXo) Xfc^ei y^pw/nevovc' wc ei tig to fiev 
viravykviov Kepf3iKapiov \eyoi, to Se yeipofxaKTpov, 

txainrav" (Herodian de Barbarismo et Solwcismo, 
Valchn. Ammon. p. 192.) But ours is a question 
not of correctness of expression, but how far the 
introduction of new terms is likely to have altered 
the accents of the old. 

Besides, in discussing the probable results of 
an intercourse with foreigners, we must remember 



CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 273 

the particular habits of the people supposed to 
have been affected by it. Our accents are learned 
from our mothers, and not from our schoolmas- 
ters, and are continued by tradition from one 
generation to another just as effectually, whether 
there be a pure taste or a bad taste in literature, 
or no literature at all. Now the Greek women 
were from their retired and domestic habits very 
little likely to learn the accentuation of foreign- 
ers. Plato remarks in a passage already quoted 
(p. 35), that the women in his time preserved the 
ancient manner of pronunciation more strictly 
than the men. And though it would have been 
easy for Vossius or Gaily to say that the habits of 
the women must have changed, we find a similar 
account of them from an eye-witness nearly two 
thousand years afterwards : " Viri Aulici veterem 
sermonis dignitatem atque elegantiam retinebant: 
in primisque ipsse nobiles mulieres, quibuscum 
nullum esset omnino cum viris peregrinis com- 
mercium, merus ille ac purus Graecorum sermo 
servabatur intactus." (Letter of Philelphus, dated 
1451, cited in the Life of John Argyropulus in 
Hodius de Greeds Illustrious, p. 189.) I have 
already said, that the causes most commonly 
assigned for the corruption of the accents seem 
virtually to resolve themselves into one, that is, 
contact with other nations. Henninius enume- 
rates six causes by which languages are corrupted 
and changed : — 

1 . Mere lapse of time. 

T 



274 CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

2. Colonization ; for so I suppose we must un- 
derstand " Derivatio ad populos peregrinos." 

3. Mixture of other languages. 

4. Decay of learning. 

5. Introduction of the language of a conquer- 
ing nation into a subjugated country. 

6. The utter destruction of a people, (s. 143.) 
That the first of these causes alone has little or 

no influence has been already shown. 

The last does not apply to the present case. 
The second, third, and fifth resolve themselves 
into one, namely, contact with other nations. 
The fourth does in the present case resolve itself 
into the same, because, though it might be pos- 
sible for a nation, standing apart from all others, 
first to cultivate, and then by degrees to neglect, 
learning ; it was not so with the Greeks : their 
decay of learning is a decay accompanied by an 
intercourse with barbarians, and mainly attri- 
butable to the subjugation of the country by 
those barbarians. A mere decay of learning, 
proceeding from internal causes alone, could 
never have any effect upon the accentuation of 
the people, who might gradually lose the purity 
of taste, and the felicity of expression of their an- 
cestors, without any change in their pronuncia- 
tion. And generally we may conclude, that, to 
whatever causes we attribute a corruption in the 
accents, those causes must have worked by slow 
degrees, and could not have produced a revolution 
in the pronunciation at once throughout the whole 



CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 275 

country where Greek was studied and spoken. 
They must also have operated more or less effec- 
tually according to the circumstances of the peo- 
ple affected by them. And yet we see by the 
manuscripts, that the accents in different parts 
of the world, where Greek was spoken and read, 
were precisely the same. Strange, that in no 
one corner of the world the pure accent of better 
times should have been preserved ! — bat much 
more strange, that all countries should have 
agreed or happened to corrupt it in the same 
manner, and should have adopted or laid down 
a regular and uniform code of depravation ! 

I have already adverted to the agreement be- 
tween the accents of the Greeks of the present 
day with the marks in the manuscripts ; and I 
have used that agreement to disprove the theory 
of the corruption of the marks by copyists. But 
this same state of facts ought also to make us 
hesitate in receiving too readily the notion, that 
the pure accentuation of the Greeks has been 
corrupted by the influx of foreigners, by the de- 
cay of learning, or by a combination of these 
with other causes. We ought not without proof 
to assume that certain effects were produced be- 
fore the destruction of the Greek empire by 
causes which have been as actively at work since 
without producing any such effects. How hap- 
pened it, that the Greeks, whom you affirm to 
have adopted so readily the accents of the na- 
tions with whom they came in contact while free, 

t 2 



276 CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

have remained for so many centuries without 
introducing any fresh corruption from the nation 
by whom they were enslaved ? If the decay of 
learning produced such effects as you suppose, 
what might we not have expected from the ex- 
tinction of learning ? And yet to be assured that 
the Greek accent has at least remained unchanged 
for the last six hundred years, we have only to 
compare the evidence of our own eyes with the 
evidence of our own ears. Surely this ought to 
make us slow in adopting the arbitrary assump- 
tion, that some time or other between the reign 
of Alexander and the thirteenth century, the ac- 
centuation, not of a word here and there, but of 
the whole language, must have been changed at 
once ; or else, that it must have been altered 
gradually till the thirteenth century, when having 
attained a certain degree of corruption, the people 
should have carried this corruption no further, 
but should have maintained this vitiated system 
with an obstinacy as remarkable as the facility 
with which they had given up the purer accen- 
tuation of their ancestors. Our communication 
with modern Greece enables us to grapple more 
successfully with the Vossian theory, by taking 
a particular part of Greece, of which we know 
both the history and the present state, and so 
avoid the looseness which results from applying 
to Greece generally expressions applicable only 
to parts of Greece. It is easy to assume that 
such and such causes must have corrupted the 



CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 277 

Greek accents ; but very difficult to point out 
any nation whose particular accents have been 
likely to work this corruption, or any particular 
spot where such corruption has left stronger 
traces than elsewhere. Let us leave generalities, 
and take a local habitation for the scene of our 
controversy. In the island of Corfu, all people, 
from the noble to the peasant, when they assent 
to a proposition, say juaAi<rra. You say this is a 
corruption : the ancient Corcyreeans, who under- 
stood quantity, called it ^aXiara. From whom 
then did they learn to lay the accent on the first 
syllable ? The foreigners, with whom they first 
came in contact, were the Romans ; but from 
them they could not have learned to place the 
accent on the first syllable, because the Romans 
would have agreed with them in laying it on the 
second. The next masters of the island were the 
Venetians : would they teach this throwing back 
of the accents ? Dr. Gaily would seem to think 
they might. He says, " As some parts of Greece 
were under the dominion of the Venetians, it is 
probable that the modern Greeks learned this 
method of accentuation from the Italians, who 
sometimes place the accent upon the fourth from 
the last ; as seguitano, visit ano, desiderano, consi- 
derano." (p. 101.) In the first place, this rea- 
soning proves too much, as the Greeks never do 
throw the accent further back than the antepe- 
nultimate. But it is evident that the modern 
Italians in these words place the accent on the 



278 CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

same syllable with their ancestors, desiderano 
being only a corrupt or vulgar modification of 
desiderant. If the Venetians had ever pronounced 
conosco or rdgazzo, these would weigh something 
in the argument. Again, how should the Vene- 
tians, who resided principally in the city of Corfu, 
have introduced their accentuation all over an 
island through which there were no carriage- 
roads till after its occupation by the English? 
But supposing the Corfiote to have derived paXi^Ta 
from the Venetians, from whom had he Xpiaroc ? 
How could the Venetian, who always lays his ac - 
cent on the first syllable, have taught the Corfiote 
to lay it on the last ? If the theory of Dr. Gaily 
had been, that the pronunciation was originally 
XpiGToc, and changed by corruption to Xpiaroc, 
there would have been some ground for laying 
tbis corruption to the charge of the Venetians, 
who say Gristo. But the theory is just the re- 
verse ; and the use of oxytones cannot surely be 
traced to those who have none in their own lan- 
guage. Here again the Turks are out of the 
question, having never succeeded in making 
themselves masters of this island. Neither is 
there any ground for supposing that a complete 
extinction of ancient learning had taken place in 
Corfu at the time when the Turks possessed 
themselves of Greece. Hody mentions several 
learned Corcyraeans who flourished about that 
time, and particularly Eparchus, who was Greek 
professor at Venice about 1445, and afterwards 



CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 279 

returned to his own country, where he passed his 
old age in literary pursuits. He possessed a col- 
lection of one hundred Greek manuscripts, and 
composed elegiac verses on the Turkish conquest. 
(Hodius de Glacis Illustribus, II. 1 0. ) And yet the 
accentuation of the Corfiotes is precisely the same 
as that of the inhabitants of other parts of Greece, 
who have changed their masters oftener ; all of 
them agreeing with the marks of the manuscript 
of Theophilus, and all of them therefore having 
remained unchanged for six centuries. These 
remarks, drawn from what we know of the later 
period of the history of Greece, ought to make 
us careful in admitting the sweeping assertions 
of Dr. Gaily and others, that the Persian inva- 
sion, the Greek dynasties in Asia, the Roman 
conquest j, the Gothic irruption, or the Turkish 
despotism, must have had the effect of corrupting 
the accents. Against such assertions, it is surely 
a fair course of argument to canvass each of these 
events by itself, and to dispute the probability of 
that event having had the effect imputed to it. 
But I admit that, on either side of the question, 
such speculations weigh but little against positive 
testimony of grammarians. If from that testi- 
mony it can be collected that the marks or the 
accents have been altered, all conjecture derived 
from history falls to the ground ; and it only re- 
mains to inquire, whether the alteration is to be 
attributed to a succession of political events, not 
one of which by itself seemed likely to effect it ; 



280 CORRUPTION OF ACCENTS. 

or whether we should seek for the roots of it in 
the silent working of other causes, which history 
has been less careful to record. So that I again 
turn back from the balance of probabilities, which- 
ever way that balance may be thought to incline, 
to the only safe guide, namely, the positive 
authority of grammarians who wrote before any 
corruption could have commenced : and this po- 
sitive authority I contend we have in support of 
the marks in the manuscripts to an extent which 
forms a proof falling little short of certainty ; a 
proof which at once destroys the most plausible 
conjectures of modern scholars, and which will 
one day overcome the habits and prejudices of 
our schools and universities. 



281 



CHAPTER VI. 

1. MODERN GREEK. 2. ACCENTUAL POETRY. 3. ENGLISH 

POETRY. 4. CONCLUSION. 

MODERN GREEK. 

1. Before I quit the subject of the Greek lan- 
guage, I wish to call the attention of my readers, 
and particularly such of them as have leisure for 
travelling and for a more extended course of study 
on the subject, to a source of information which 
most modern classical scholars have fastidiously 
passed by. Notwithstanding the low state of lite- 
rature and taste to which Greece has been re- 
duced, I think, not only that our knowledge of 
the pure Hellenic may be improved by the con- 
versation and writings of modern Greeks, but 
that it is very imperfect without them. 

I have, for the reasons stated at the outset, 
supported my arguments by passages taken ex- 
clusively from authors born before the second 
century. But I feel satisfied, that any impres- 
sion, which these quotations may have produced, 
will only be strengthened by a judicious inquiry 
into the works of later authors. The date, which 
I have assigned to the continuance of the purity 



282 MODERN GREEK. 

of Grecian language, is merely arbitrary. After 
Atheneeus, upon whom I rely, comes Longinus, 
whose knowledge is less miscellaneous, but whose 
taste is much better. Upon him follows close 
Porphyry, and then the Greek Fathers. In the 
dearth of pure taste and sound literature which 
followed, we have still evidence from time to 
time of men who at least knew how to appre- 
ciate, and who cultivated with industry, the 
learning of their ancestors. Of these Eusta- 
thius is the most important, as he evidently was 
well-versed in the writings not only of the poets 
and historians, but also the grammarians, of the 
pure age of Grecian literature. And again, after 
about two centuries of lamentable decay, there 
appeared a host of learned Greeks, who flying 
from the Turkish invaders of their country, found 
an asylum in the West, and became at once the 
rivals and companions, the teachers and the pupils 
of the great Italians who received them. 

Many of these learned Greeks wrote upon the 
grammar of their own language : and nothing in 
their works is more striking than their unity, 
their strict agreement with the old writers. In 
treating of the accents particularly, they lay down 
the rules precisely in the same manner, often in 
the same words, as the ancients, without' ever 
dropping the remotest hint that any change had 
taken place in them. 

Then follows a dark period, during which 
Greece, as much oppressed and as much cor- 



MODERN GREEK. 283 

rupted by her Christian as by her Mahometan 
masters, had nothing left but hope. Happily, 
however, for the fortunes of the human race, 
such a genius and such a literature as that of 
Greece once was, is not easily extinguished. With 
the first revival of liberty, or rather with the first 
dawn which announced it, returned a taste for 
the works of 4heir ancestors. In the history of 
the revival of Grecian literature, the name of 
Coray will stand conspicuous : but will Coray 
stand by himself? I own I have better hopes of 
the prospects of Greece. I think that his name 
will only be the first in order of time of a long 
list of critics, poets, historians, statesmen and 
preachers. With some of these I have discussed 
the lore of their forefathers in happier hours and 
under brighter skies than I can ever hope to see 
again. Time alone can show how much of the 
hope which I cherish of a brilliant futurity for 
them and for their country is owing to the par- 
tiality of friendship. 

But I think that valuable information respect- 
ing the Hellenic language may be derived, not 
only from the writings and the conversation of 
learned modern Greeks, but from the language 
as it is now spoken in the streets and the fields. 
During the course of this inquiry, we have found 
the modern Greeks, after so many political revo- 
lutions, and after the lapse of so many centuries, 
still using unchanged the accents of their ances- 
tors. In discussing the sound of each particular 



284 MODERN GREEK. 

letter, I did not think myself at liberty to draw 
any argument from the pronunciation now sub- 
sisting in Greece, but confined myself to the 
testimonies of ancient writers. But the inquiry 
being finished, I feel entitled to draw from the 
result of it an induction highly favourable to the 
correctness of the modern pronunciation. Of the 
twenty-four letters, of which their alphabet is 
composed, we may say with certainty, as far as 
such a word is applicable to a subject not capable 
of actual demonstration, that they pronounce 
nineteen as well-educated Greeks did two thou- 
sand years ago. Three, the Z, the H and the Y, 
they pronounce differently. In the two doubtful 
cases of B and A, is the authority of the modern 
Greeks to go for nothing ? On the contrary, it is 
obvious that the probability of their pronunciation 
being right is as nineteen to three, or more than 
six to one. And as to the three which they pro- 
nounce differently from Dionysius, we must not 
hastily conclude that they have introduced any 
change from a contact with other nations. Plato 
teaches us, in a passage already cited (p. 35), that 
with respect to the H and Y at least we must look 
to Greece, and to Greece alone, for the confound- 
ing these letters with the I and with each other. 
If we make the same inference from the expres- 
sions of Plato, which Vossius does from those of 
Eustathius as to the accent of epipot, if the ancients 
(01 waXaiol) must needs be right, and whatever 
succeeding generations alter (peTa<jTpe(j)ov<jiv) is 



MODERN GREEK. 285 

to be attributed to corruption, we are warranted 
in sounding and writing the word Ifxepa, and the 
iotacism would be the best, because the oldest, 
mode of pronunciation. So that this peculiarity, 
instead of being introduced by modern corruption, 
is in all probability older than Plato, and has been 
handed down by a perpetual tradition of unedu- 
cated persons, until it has become, by the almost 
total extinction of polite education, the language 
of the whole nation. Indeed we find that the 
Spartans substituted the I for the H in many 
words, and if so, perhaps the inhabitants of all 
Peloponnesus and of the Dorian colonies. Quinc- 
tilian enumerates among the mispronunciations 
to be avoided the iwrajacrjuoiiq. (I. 5. 32.) The 
Greeks having invented a name for it, shows it 
was prevalent in Greece. This iotacism I found 
less disagreeable than I expected, because it comes 
to the ear for the first time coupled with so plea- 
sing a pronunciation of most of the other letters 
as to make one forget its vulgarity. Nor have 
I observed that the use of the same sound for 
six different vowels and diphthongs creates any 
ambiguity in discourse ; the subject spoken of 
serving always to explain what is meant. This 
may readily be understood by any one who re- 
members that ai, aie, ait, ais, aient, ois, oit, oient, 
e, es, est, are in French all pronounced alike, and 
yet without any uncertainty or inconvenience : 
though it will be easy for future critics to assert 
that they could not do so, or that, if they did, 



286 MODERN GREEK, 

they must have learned it from the Cossacks or 
the Algerines. 

The modern pronunciation of the Z, though 
differing from that laid down by Dionysius and 
Herodian, must have been not only known but 
common in the time of Lucian, who uses the Z 
to represent the common pronunciation of 2/iu/ova, 
which it does exactly to this day. 

One peculiarity of the modern Greeks, which 
I have already mentioned, is, that when the let- 
ters NIT come together they change the power of 
both, turning the first into a M, and the latter into 
the English B. That the first of these changes 
at least was common in very ancient times, 
appears from numerous inscriptions. We find 
MEM IT0AI2 for ph ttoXic in the Potidaean in- 
scription. Rose gives eleven similar instances, 
all before the Archonship of Euclid, which took 
place B.C. 403. (Inscript. Grac. Prolegom. p. 45.) 
It has been shown that the modern pronunciation 
of three at least of the diphthongs is correct : the 
iotacism of the 01 may perhaps be justly sus- 
pected : but the mispronunciation, if it be one, 
of this diphthong is much more likely to be an- 
cient and national than derived from foreigners, 
to be in short rather a vulgarism than a barbarism. 
I would further ask those writers, who so readily 
suppose a rapid corruption of the language from 
contact with other nations, how they account for 
its having remained unchanged for the last three 
centuries. That it has so remained, is clear from 



MODERN GREEK. 287 

the Erasmian controversy, as shown by the " Syl- 
loge" of Havercamp, in which we find a discus- 
sion of every peculiarity of the pronunciation then 
prevailing, and not one which does not prevail 
now. Mr. Hallam mentions a manuscript in the 
British Museum, containing the Lord's Prayer in 
Greek, written in Anglo-Saxon characters, the 
date of which he supposes to be about the eighth 
century, and proving the pronunciation to have 
been at that time " modern or Romaic, and not 
what we hold to be ancient." (Hallam' f s Introduc- 
tion to the Literature of Europe, fyc. 1837. 1. 120, 
note.) If the language had been gradually cor- 
rupted down to the eighth century, how has it 
happened that the same cause prevailing for ten 
centuries more has had no further effect ? 

In discussing the correct pronunciation of the 
language, I have not insisted upon those ancient 
inscriptions, in which we find one letter for an- 
other, as E for AI. Such an inscription does not 
prove that the AI diphthong was pronounced like 
E by the learned, because it must have been made 
by an ignorant stone-cutter ; but it proves at least 
that the stone-cutter so pronounced it himself, 
and so makes an end of its being a barbarism 
derived from later ages and foreign countries. 
Liscovius has with much industry collected these 
inscriptions, and arranged them in chronological 
order. He candidly confesses, that the result of 
his inquiry has been to find the modern pronun- 
ciation older, much older, than the Erasmians 



288 MODERN GREEK. 

believe, and than he himself expected and wished. 
(p. 179.) 

The omission, too, of the initial aspirate seems 
very likely to be a Grecian vulgarism. We know 
how apt our own aspirate, though so strongly 
marked, is to be neglected by the uneducated 
part of the community : so that if we could sup- 
pose a general extinction of learning in this 
country, it is by no means unlikely that the in- 
itial H would in the course of a few centuries 
become extinct through a large portion, if not the 
whole of England. The H in the middle of our 
words has already been lost : we pronounce when 
and wen alike ; why was the former word written 
with an H, but that that letter was once gene- 
rally pronounced in England as it generally con- 
tinues to be in Scotland ? It is remarkable that 
the initial aspirate has sustained the same fate in 
Italy as in Greece. Is then the omission of it in 
Italy a barbarism ? Before we answer too hastily 
in the affirmative, let us hear Quinctilian : — 
" Apud nos potest quseri, an in scripto sit vitium, 
si H litera non est notata? cujus quidem latio 
mutata cum temporibus est saepius. Parcissime 
ea veteres usi etiam in vocalibus, cum aedos, ir- 
cosque dicebant." (I. 5. 19.) 

But I believe that not only in the pronuncia- 
tion, but in the structure of the modern Greek it 
will be found, upon critical and candid inquiry, 
that much, which at first sight strikes us as bar- 
barous, is only ancient. Many of their expres- 



MODERN GREEK. 289 

sions are Homeric, as Ka/uvto for nonH, like'H<£ai(T- 
toc Kafxe revyjwv. So (tkotwvw (I kill) reminds us 
of (tkotoc oaae KaXvxpe. I remember one day in 
Albania asking a Greek the cause of the report 
of guns in a neighbouring wood ; the answer 
was "gkotwvow (fraaaric" (they are killing wood- 
pigeons) : this at the time sounded very barbarous 
to my ear ; but the first word is formed by syn- 
cope from (tkotwvovctiv ; and the second, though 
less usual than rpvyuv, is a classical word, and 
is found in Athenaeus (ix. 50.), and in its Attic 
form (jyarra, in Aristophanes (Aves, 303). Nepov, 
the modern expression for water, I suspect to be 
an older Greek word than vSup, and to be the root 
whence the water-nymphs were called Nereids. 
The modern term for a rose is rpiavra(j)v\\ov. 
Herodotus speaks of gardens in Macedonia which 

produced roses ei> eicaarov eyov i^Kovra <pv\\a. 

(Uran. 138.) And Athenaeus quotes Theophras- 
tus as saying that some roses are composed of 
five leaves (7revra(pv\\a) , some of twelve, and 
some of a hundred, (xv. 682.) I know not 
whether this statement be botanically correct, 
but it leaves little doubt that the term is an an- 
cient epithet for a rose, which has by degrees 
come to be used as a substantive ; and in the 
same way fxovo^vkov, which must have been an 
epithet for 7rXoTov, is now commonly used for a 
small boat. 

y Vapi, the vulgar word for fish, is evidently an 
abbreviation from tyapiov, which was used by 

u 



290 MODERN GREEK. 

Plato and Menander. (Athen. ix. 35. St. John, 
vi. 9.) 

The modern Greeks constantly use the termi- 
nation of nouns in I, as kotti (oar), iraiS'i (child), 
which is probably very ancient, and of which we 
have an instance in the Scholium or Hymn of 
Callistratus : — 

Ev [ivpTOv ic\ahl to fytyos (poprjcru). 

And their laying the accent on the last syllable of 
these words is a confirmation of the mark which 
we find on the penultimate of naiSiov and similar 
words, though contrary to the general rule. 

The auxiliary verb, though used sparingly by 
the old Greeks, was not unknown to them, as 

eyw Qavfiaaac, (Sophocl. (Ed. Col. 1140.), e^et wepa- 

vac, (Id. Ajax, 22.), ovSettw \hlavr ex& (Id. CEdip. 
Tyr. 730). So in the passage, eiirep, o pij yevoiro, 

vvv ovroc, eOe\ei Kparrjcjai (Aristoph. Vesp. 534.), 

eOeXei is merely auxiliary : the sense being, not 
"if he wishes to conquer," (for every candidate 
of course does that), but, " if, which Heaven for- 
bid, he shall conquer." Aq IStojmev (let us see) is 
by syncope from a(j)ec. Economus tells us, that 
in the Morea they say ac, tov (let him go) instead 
of a(j)ec avrov. (p. 5 1 5.) Their negative §ev is evi- 
dently an abbreviation from ovSev, which we find 
occasionally used for ou^t, as in Plato (Cratyl. 

C. 16): — Eot/ce rt b \eyu) tw aXrjOel, r) ovSev ; the 

answer is, iraw pev ovv eoiKe. Indeed the very 
word Sev is used by Alcseus, as we learn from 

the great etymologist. Avrov Se tov ovSetc to 



ACCENTUAL POETRY. 291 

ovSerepov Sei>, \i*>piG rrjc ov TrapaQecreMc; e/^ofnev irapa 

AX/co/w ev tw evaru). In voce ov$ei.c. The ety- 
mologist derives ouSetc, not from the commonly 
received combination of ov$e elc, but from ov 
and Setc, equivalent to t*c, from whence is de- 
rived o $ei»a. This etymology is adopted by 
Mr. Donaldson (New Cratylus, p. 190), and it is 
strengthened by this usage of the modern Greeks, 
who are less likely to have split the negative, and 
retained one letter of it, than to have sunk it al- 
together, as the French have in their expression 
of "personne" for nobody. The use of ovSefxia 
in the feminine certainly makes against this ety- 
mology, but not conclusively : it being by no 
means improbable that this feminine form was 
invented later, and taken loosely from ovSe elc, 
without due attention to its original derivation. 

ACCENTUAL POETRY. 

2. Even the poetry of modern Greece, uncouth 
as it appears to a classical ear, is not hastily to 
be fathered upon a barbarous age. The modern 
Greeks in their verse attend to accent alone, 
without any regard to quantity. It may perhaps 
excite our surprise, that, while they preserved 
many of the manners and customs of their an- 
cestors, they should thus have entirely lost the 
ancient rhythm. But the origin of that rhythm 
is in truth much more extraordinary than its ex- 
tinction. That a people in so early an age should 
have been gifted with so refined an ear as to make 

u 2 



292 ACCENTUAL POETRY. 

the length of their syllables the basis of their po- 
pular poetry, would have been scarcely credible 
without the undoubted proof which we have of 
the fact. Homer's metre ought to excite our 
wonder as much as Homer's sentiments. But 
when we speak of a whole people having attained 
such a degree of refinement, we must be careful 
not to use the term " people" in too extensive a 
sense. We know that before Homer's time slave- 
ry was the ordinary lot of a vanquished nation ; 
the hewing of wood and drawing of water, the 
drudgery of tillage, the manufactures which re- 
quired irksome or unhealthy labour, were in a 
great measure imposed upon slaves. So that 
those who carried on war and politics, and who 
filled up their intervals of leisure with games and 
music and poetry, were in truth, though styling 
themselves the people, only a rich, warlike, elo- 
quent and refined aristocracy. These fortunate 
citizens would learn poetry from the direct in- 
struction of the masters of that art ; and still 
more from their performances at feasts and public 
assemblies. Thus poetry coupled with music 
would be handed down, by a traditional educa- 
tion, to a class of citizens, who in the best times 
formed a small portion of the whole population. 
In the later ages of the Greek empire, it is pro- 
bable, that the proportion of those, who under- 
stood the rhythm and the principles of the an- 
cient poetry, would be decreased ; and at the time 
of the Turkish invasion, the greater part of them 



ACCENTUAL POETRY. 293 

were probably reduced to slavery. The few, 
who carried their literature to the West, found 
there the accentual poetry in such general use 
and esteem, that their precepts on the mode of 
observing chronic rhythm, perhaps not much 
appreciated, and certainly soon forgotten, have 
ceased with them, and perhaps ceased for ever. 

We find, however, that the Greeks have now a 
popular poetry of their own ; the Turks know 
this to their cost : for nothing did so much to 
revive the liberty of Greece as the heart-stirring 
compositions of her poets. These compositions 
are framed according to accent alone, without 
regard to quantity. We find the same species 
of verses, usually called tto\itikoi vTiyoi, very fre- 
quent in the later ages of the Greek empire. 
These accentual verses have been spoken of by 
scholars with much contempt ; and contemptible 
indeed they appear when put into competition 
with the exquisite compositions of their ances- 
tors : but if compared with the poetry of the rest 
of modern Europe, they will be found by no means 
deficient ; being generally as regular in their ca- 
dence as the Italian, and much more so than the 
English or the French. 

Nothing appears more natural, than to take as 
the basis of versification the accents, which strike 
at once upon the most unrefined ear, instead of 
quantity, which requires some nicety of sense, and 
some knowledge of music, in the recitation at 
least, if not in the composition of it. But when 



294 ACCENTUAL POETRY. 

did the Greeks first learn or invent this system of 
versification, so much less technical, and probably 
so much less agreeable, than their ancient metre ? 
The fastidious scholar gives the careless and un- 
philosophical answer, it was a barbarism of the 
middle ages. Nay, some critics have gone so far 
as to suppose that the accentual verses were in- 
tended to be metrical, and are therefore a mere 
tissue of blunders. This is sufficiently confuted, 
if confutation were wanting, by the fact, that 
John Tzetzes composed verses of both kinds 
with equal correctness, the one doubtless for the 
few, and the other for the many. The accentual 
verse consisted of fifteen syllables, disposed ac- 
cording to two general rules ; first, that the odd 
syllables should be without accent ; second, that 
the even syllables should be accented : as, 

On 6 | gov cu | vairo \ Xafielv | e/ce | Xeve \ \pvcri \ ov. 
A vvi | j3as ws | Aw | hooos | ypdcpei \ icai At \ iov a j fia. 

{Cited from Tzetzes by Fost. p. 113.) 

The first rule has exceptions, as that the first syl- 
lable has often the accent instead of the second, 
and the ninth instead of the tenth. Besides mo- 
nosyllables, particularly articles and conjunctions, 
as tov, Kai, though accented, are constantly ad- 
mitted into the uneven places. 

The second rule has numerous exceptions from 
necessity, in allowing unaccented syllables of po- 
lysyllabic words to occupy the even places : it is 
obvious that, without this indulgence, many 
words of three svllables and all of four and up- 



ACCENTUAL POETRY. 205 

wards must be entirely excluded, because no word 
has more than one accent : this accounts for the 
last syllable of Svvairo and e/ceXeue falling into 
places which ought to have an accent. These 
rules, and the exceptions also, are exactly ap- 
plicable to English verse. 

' ' Even the variations of the place of the ac- 
cent are mostly the very same that our accentual 
measure of the same kind admits. A complete 
passage will show this perhaps more satisfactorily 
than the unconnected lines above quoted from 
Dr. Foster's essay. I have no opportunity of 
giving such a passage from the works of Tzetzes, 
but the following from Constantinus Manasses 
may serve equally well : — 

O yap tol 7rcus tov Kuvaravros, apri Xa/3(i)P ret (TKrJTTTpa, 
(Tovvofia fie rw j3amXel ftpe<p6Qev \{wvoto.vtivos) 
EroAw fiapei tyjv HaceXuJv KaraXajdfjareL rr\aov' 
Kal 7rcWas tovs avToyeipas teal tovs oKedpepyctras 
Tov fiaariXeios Kal irarpos ev^Uojs aTroa^arrei, 
Kat avv avrols Mi£7£iov tov rervpavr^KOTa." 

{Mitford on the Harmony of Language, ed. 1774, p. 247.) 

These verses seem to have been framed, as to the 
number of their syllables, in imitation of the tetra- 
meter catalectic iambics, which are so frequently 
used by Aristophanes, as, 

Kay fxi], KaXovvTwv, rovs fxo^Xovs ^aXcUfftv at yvvalxes, 

(Lysistrat. 316.) 

which I have selected because it happens to be an 
accentual as well as a chronical verse. 

When scholars conversant with chronic metre, 
for so Tzetzes at least unquestionably was, con- 



296 ACCENTUAL POETRY. 

descended to compose this accentual poetry, were 
they essaying a late invention, or continuing an 
ancient usage ? Henninius assumes that the in- 
vention was late, and draws from that assumption 
an unwarrantable conclusion: — "Ex hoc vero 
ipso versuurn genere evidentissime apparet priscis 
Grsecis ignotos fuisse accentus : cur enim hos ver- 
sus ignorarunt ? nullam certe aliam ob causam, 
quam quod barbariem nescirent, cujus pronuntia- 
tionem hi versus habent pro fundamento." (s.62.) 
But were the ancient Greeks ignorant of accen- 
tual verses ? Dionysius, in order to illustrate the 
charm which the apt position of words has upon 
our ears, takes the following lines from Homer: — 

AW eypr, &are TnXavra yvvrf ^epvrjrts aXr/dt)s, 
H re (rradfxuv eyjnvau kcu e'ipiov afx<pls aveXxei, 
laa^ova, 'iva iraialv aeiKea fxtaQbr aprjrai. 

" This metre," he says, " is heroic, hexameter, 
acatalectic, scanned by dactylic feet. Now out 
of these very same w T ords, by transposing their 
position, I will make the verses tetrameter instead 
of hexameter, and accentual (wpoavSiKovG) instead 
of heroic : — 

AAA' eyov wore yvi'rj ^fprrjris rdXayr aXrjdrjs, 
H t eipiov afxcpis /ecu nradfjiov e\ova aveXicei, 
Iaa£ova\ IV aeiKea natali' apijrcti fxiadoy. 

Such as the Priapeian, or, as some call them, 
Ithyphallic verses : as, 

(){/ fiefirjXos, d>s Xeyerai, tov veov Atovvaov, 

Kpyw £' e£ evepyeairjs uypyiutrfievos SJKv" — (IV. 28.) 

Hephaestion cites these last two lines in the same 



ACCENTUAL POETRY. 297 

words, except that in the first he reads w reXeral, 
instead of d>c Xeyerai : he calls them Priapeian, 
and attributes them to Euphorion the Chersone- 
siote. (De metris, c. 16.) 

Comparing these two lines of Euphorion with 
those of Tzetzes and Manasses, we find them pre- 
cisely the same in cadence : and then Dionysius 
calling them TrpoawSiKovQ seems to place it beyond 
a question that they are framed according to ac- 
cent. The three accentual verses of Dionysius 
are less regular ; but we must remember that he 
had restricted himself to the very same words 
which he found in Homer, and that his main ob- 
ject was not to compose accurate verses, but to 
show how completely different a rhythm and 
cadence might result from a transposition of the 
same words. These Priapeian songs were pro- 
bably popular in the fullest sense of the word : 
they were sung at the vintage, at the jolly harvest- 
home of the grape, by boors and slaves, who for- 
got for the day their sorrow and degradation, and 
as they had shared in the labour, shared also in 
the joy. Such a company would scarcely appre- 
ciate metre, and certainly would not be able to 
recite it. Nothing seems more natural than that 
they should give vent to their mirth in a ruder 
and less technical system of verse. It is true, 
that Hephaestion, in giving these verses, treats 
them as metrical. It is possible, that if Hephaes- 
tion were a mere scholar, born and bred in cities, 
he might be so ignorant of the manners of the 



298 ACCENTUAL POETRY. 

country as not to know that these verses were 
accentual, and he might accordingly proceed to 
torture them into metre, as Quinctilian tells us 
that some grammarians in his own time did lyric 
poetry (in certam mensuram coegerunt). And 
this supposition conveys not the least disrespect 
to the authority of Hephaestion as a scholar of 
taste, industry and learning, but only suggests 
that he may have been wanting, as better scho- 
lars than he have been, in that knowledge of the 
various ways of men which books cannot give. 
Neither is he able to reduce them to any fixed 
metre ; classing them among the 7ro\vayr\f.iaTi<jra, 
which he defines to be such verses, as without 
any regularity admit of a variety of cadence, ac- 
cording to the arbitrary choice of the poet. But 
without further discussing whether they ought to 
be considered as accentual or not, it is enough for 
my purpose, that Dionysius so considered them : 
and admitting him to have been mistaken as to the 
rhythm of Euphorion's verses, we must surely al- 
low him to know what he meant to be the rhythm 
of his own. So that instead of hastily concluding 
these accentual verses to be the mere creatures of 
barbarism, we are led by this passage of Diony- 
sius into a new and interesting inquiry, how far 
Greece may be looked upon as the mother, not 
only of ancient, but of modern poetry ; and 
whether the Troubadours, and particularly those 
of Marseilles, sung in a cadence derived by tra- 
dition from Hellenic ancestors. 



299 



ENGLISH POETRY. 



3. While on the subject of accentual poetry, 
it may be remarked that there is less wonder, if 
we are at a loss to settle the principles of Greek 
rhythm, when some of our ablest writers are by 
no means agreed upon our own. Many of them, 
in treating of the structure of English verse, seem 
to consider that it consists in quantity, and speak 
of iambics, anapaests, spondees and dactyls, as if 
our verses were divided into metrical feet, and 
these feet were measured by long and short syl- 
lables. The very use of such expressions seems 
to imply, that the ear of the person using them is 
insensibly confusing accent and quantity, though 
perhaps in the same page he may show that his un- 
derstanding is alive to their difference. Nothing 
can more forcibly show how liable an English ear 
is to this confusion, than our discovering it where 
we should least expect to find it, namely, in the 
work of that very critic, who has given us the 
clearest definitions of accent and quantity, and 
pointed out in the most perspicuous manner the 
distinction between them. Dr. Foster, in speak- 
ing of the quantity of the English language, after 
ably confuting the proposition, that the languages 
of the northern nations, including our own, have 
no quantity, thus proceeds : — 

" If the voice is retarded in some syllables and 
quickened in others, by what cause soever that 
delay or rapidity be occasioned or directed, there 



300 ENGLISH POETRY. 

is truly and formally long and short quantity. 
When in the words honestly, character, I dwell 
longer on the first syllable than on either of the 
two last, which I hurry over swiftly, the last two 
are the short ones, notwithstanding the conso- 
nants with which to the eye they appear to be 
clogged ; and had there been six consonants in- 
stead of three in those last two syllables, if my 
voice should in practice hasten over each of them 
in less time than it does over the first, which is 
disencumbered with consonants, the latter sylla- 
bles would certainly have a short quantity, and 
the first a long one. And thus it must appear to 
every one, who will not suffer his eyes to judge 
for his ears." (p. 16.) Now though it be certain, 
that those syllables are short, which in practice 
are hastened over in less time than the others, yet 
I doubt whether such a process can take place in 
the English, with respect to the words which Dr. 
Foster has selected. In the word " honestly," the 
consonants S and T must meet not only the eye, 
but the ear too ; and that they may do so, it is 
necessary that there should be two distinct ope- 
rations of the organs, or, as Henninius expresses 
it, the action of different muscles of the mouth, 
which take up about twice the time which is re- 
quired for the first syllable. It is true, that the 
English might, if they pleased, protract the sound 
of the first syllable, so as to make it as long, or 
even longer than the second. But do they in 
fact do so? Unless I am to suffer the ears of 



ENGLISH POETRY. 301 

another to judge for mine, I should say that they 
do not : and I suspect that Dr. Foster's assertion 
that they do, is caused by the confusion which 
his ear has made between accent and quantity in 
English, notwithstanding the ability which he has 
shown in distinguishing them in Greek. He after- 
wards says : — 

"The case is, we English cannot readily ele- 
vate a syllable without lengthening it, by which 
our acute accent and long quantity generally co- 
incide, and fall together on the same syllable." 
And in the note he cites the authority of Dr. 
Johnson, who, in the rules of prosody prefixed 
to his Dictionary, considers the acute tone and 
long quantity in English verse as equivalent by 
acting together. On a point of recondite learn- 
ing I should be unwilling indeed to oppose my 
opinion to that of Dr. Foster and Dr. Johnson ; 
but here the question lies open to the decision of 
our own ears : and I beg the reader to pronounce 
aloud the words " honestly, responsibility, ca- 
valry, suicide," and mark the length of time 
which each syllable takes in the delivery, and 
then say whether the acute accent and long 
quantity coincide in them, or whether some of 
the syllables which are depressed do not, in each 
of those words, take up more time than that 
which is elevated. And having given these words 
as instances, I will venture to say, that we shall 
end, not by confirming Dr. Foster's rule, but by 
doubting whether the English has not as many 



30J ENGLISH POETRY. 

accented syllables short, and as many unaccented 
syllables long, as the Greek. Neither do I think 
that there is any tendency in my countrymen to 
dwell long on the accented syllables. When, in 
reading Latin poetry, we come to the word " Tha- 
myris," we give it, as I apprehend, the proper ac- 
cent and quantity : the fault we commit in Latin 
poetry being, not that we dwell too long on the 
short syllables, but that we do not dwell enough 
on the long ones. So to the second syllable of 
"Maeonides" we rightly give a short quantity 
and an acute accent. Now when we make En- 
glish words of these names, and read them so, 

Blind Thamyris, and blind Mseonides, 

do we dwell longer on the accented syllables than 
we did in Latin? Certainly not. The verse is 
purely accentual, and our ears are satisfied with 
finding the accent on the proper syllables, without 
any reference to quantity at all. 

Dr. Foster indeed admits that the coincidence 
of the acute accent and long quantity in our lan- 
guage is not universal. He states as an instance, 
that the accent is on a short syllable in r< privy," 
though on a long one in "private." (p. 25, note.) 

In giving an account of our poetry, Dr. Foster 
says : — 

" Our common epic verse, consisting of five 
feet, is trimeter iambic brachycatalectic, 

A"n honest man 's|the noblest work | of God." — (p. 29.) 

He marks the line as a pure iambic. I appeal to 



ENGLISH POETRY. 303 

i 

the reader's ear : dismiss all consideration of the 
elevation of syllables, and recite this line with the 
attention confined to their quantity, that is, to the 
time which each takes up, and mark them accord- 
ingly : the result of my own ear's judgment is 
this : — 

A"n honest man 's the noblest work of God. 

Other ears may differ in some syllables from 
mine, but how many will make it a pure iambic? 
Dr. Foster's admission that the coincidence of the 
acute accent and the long quantity in our lan- 
guage is not universal, and the instance which 
he selects as an exception, enable me further to 
show our poetry not to be iambic, by this test, 
that, provided the even syllables be accented, it 
is immaterial whether they be long or short : — 

He calls the pri-|-vate council sore [displeased. 

This Dr. Foster would call an iambic, and he 
would tell us, that the even syllables are long by 
the coincidence of the acute and the long quan- 
tity. Now for "private" substitute " privy," the 
first syllable of which he admits to be short. Is 
the verse less regular ? Not at all. And why ? 
Surely for no other reason, but because the verse 
is accentual, and not chronical, and since "privy " 
has the same accent as "private," it suits the verse 
as well, though its quantity be different. Dr. Fos- 
ter in support of his proposition, that the essence 
of English metre is founded on quantity alone, 
uses an argument, upon which I am willing to 



304 ENGLISH POETRY. 

allow the truth of that proposition to rest, and to 
abide thereon the decision of any number of well- 
educated persons. 

" Let a Scotchman take some verses of any of 
our poets, as these : — 

All human things are subject to decay, 

And when fate summons, monarchs must obey. 

He will pronounce them with the accent trans- 
posed thus : — 

All human things are subject to decay, 

And when fate summons, monarchs must obey. 

Now though he alters the tones, and transfers the 
acute from the beginning to the end of words, yet 
in this pronunciation the metre still essentially 
subsists, because founded in quantity, which is 
not violated by him. Did the metre depend on 
accent, it would be necessarily disturbed and 
destroyed by his transposition of that accent." 
(p. 36.) 

Now I agree to this test : but I say, that the 
metre is disturbed and destroyed by such a 
pronunciation of human, subject, summons and 
monarch, as he, whether justly or not, has at- 
tributed to the Scotch ; and I should be much 
surprised to find any Englishman, or any Scotch- 
man well versed in English poetry, whose ear 
would not agree with mine in this particular. 
And in truth, the more we consider the subject, 
the more disposed shall we be to assent to Mr. 
Mitford's proposition, that " accent is the funda- 
mental efficient of English versification." (p. 9 1 .) 



ENGLISH POETRY. 305 

Perhaps this erroneous account of the quantity 
in the English language, coming as it does in the 
early part of the work, immediately after the 
chapter explaining the difference between accent 
and quantity, and before he touches on the ac- 
cents of the Romans and Greeks, may have been 
one cause why Dr. Foster's admirable essay has 
had so little practical effect. If it be necessary to 
the apprehension of an argument, that two ideas 
should be carefully and constantly distinguished 
from each other, it is indeed important that we 
should begin by a clear definition of the terms 
by which each is to be represented : but this is 
not enough : we must also continue to preserve 
through the course of the argument the distinc- 
tion with which we set out ; and nothing can 
more effectually bring us back to error than the 
use of familiar illustrations, which assume the 
identity of the very two things which we have 
been labouring to distinguish. 

Dr. Foster's theory, that the acute accent and 
long quantity coincide in the English, afford his 
opponents a good ground to infer that they co- 
incide in the Greek too. Dr. Gaily, after stating 
the question at issue between himself and Dr. 
Foster, says : — " Now upon this state of the de- 
bate, which is the only true one, it is very obvious 
to observe, that by the acute accent we mean that 
accent which we moderns use in pronouncing our 
own language, and which doth in all cases sound 
the syllable over which it is placed long, and that 



306 ENGLISH POETRY. 

Mr. Foster means an accent which is not in use 
with us. In relation, therefore, to the accent 
which we mean, and which we all use, I really 
cannot see that there is any difference between 
us and Mr. Foster, if he abides by the principles 
which he hath laid down, and the concessions 
which he hath made. For he alloweth, that 
the accent which we use does make all syllables 
sound long to the ear, and that if the voice is 
retarded in some syllables, by what cause soever 
that delay be occasioned, there is truly and for- 
mally long quantity. But this is the very thing 
we contend for ; and from which we strongly 
conclude, that therefore the Greek language 
ought not to be pronounced according to ac- 
cents, meaning our acute accent." (Second Dis- 
sertation against Greek Accents, p. 79.) We here 
see what an advantage Foster's theory as to En- 
glish quantity gives to his opponent in destroy- 
ing the force of his argument. The best part 
perhaps of Foster's essay is that, in which he 
illustrates the different nature of accent and 
quantity, by reference to the principles of music, 
and the properties of the human voice, which in 
all nations are the same. But all this passes 
for mere theory, when we find that in our own 
language no such distinction is to be found, but 
that the acute accent and long time practically 
coincide ; and, if in our own, then in most, if 
not all, of the other languages of Europe, in 
Italian, for instance, and German, and even in 



CONCLUSION. 307 

modern Greek too, whose poetry is modulated 
exactly on the same principles as ours. 

I shall not extend this digression further, but 
shall content myself with remarking, that, whe- 
ther the poetry of modern language be founded 
simply in accent, as I think any one with an un- 
prejudiced ear must allow it is, or whether it be 
founded on quantity coinciding with accent ; in 
either case it is so entirely unlike the metrical 
rhythm of the ancient Greeks, as to make it un- 
safe to assume that any proposition is true of the 
one because it is true of the others. 

CONCLUSION. 

4. I would not wish, in thus calling the atten- 
tion of scholars to the language of modern Greece, 
to be considered as passing an encomium on its 
purity. Such praise would be scarcely less unphi- 
losophical than the sweeping charge of barbarism, 
which fastidious critics have fastened upon every 
term which they do not find in the index of their 
school-books. My aim is, to point out how wide 
and interesting a field is still open to a judicious 
scholar, who shall choose, after a patient study 
of the ancient authors, to visit their descendants, 
and sift and separate the barbarisms and corrup- 
tions, which have adhered externally to the lan- 
guage, from the inherent beauties which it has 
never lost. I am persuaded that its language, like 
its architecture, still retains in its ruins enough at 
once to instruct and to humble us. Such an in- 

x2 



308 CONCLUSION. 

quiry, too, if conducted with true candour, would 
perhaps not be altogether useless nor unaccept- 
able to the Greeks themselves. From indiscri- 
minate censure, from arrogant ridicule of their 
mode of writing and speaking, they naturally 
turn away with disgust. But I think they would 
be found to be willing listeners to the well-con- 
sidered and temperate criticism even of a fo- 
reigner, who has studied their language with at- 
tention. Neither do I consider the language as 
so irrevocably debased by vulgarism, but that a 
great part of its essential beauties may be re- 
stored, when security of property shall have pro- 
duced industry, and industry wealth, and wealth 
leisure. Their language is essentially the same 
as it was in the time of purity, and they have the 
models of the time of purity to refer to. The 
possibility of such a restoration is so far from 
being chimerical, that it may rather be said to 
have already begun. There is less difference in 
language between Plutarch and Coray than be- 
tween Chaucer and Pope. And though the me- 
trical rhythm of the ancients be now no more, 
Greece is the only country in which I should not 
despair of its revival. A Greek will begin his 
inquiry into the subject of quantity without any 
prejudices respecting accent, or rather his preju- 
dices will be all on the right side. Then the 
acute perception, the discriminating ear, the 
lively feeling which brought forth the Greek 
rhythm, still live in the race ; and these, when 



CONCLUSION. 309 

polished by civilization, and informed by study, 
may yet revive that exquisite combination of 
music and poetry which has slept through cen- 
turies of barbarism. 

It is cheering to observe in the best-informed 
of the Greeks themselves a sanguine anticipation 
of a renewal of the glories of their language and 
literature. Economus (p. 192) compares the pre- 
sent state of the language to that of Ulysses in 
disguise : — 

Kafca XP ot et'/uar' eypvTa, 

" A XX' o/jiws tovto to (TWfj.a, o TT-arpo7rap6doTOS irpotyopiKos \6yos 
Tuiv TLXXfjvwv, els rrjy EXXa^a £rj, kcu XaXet, ko.1 flact^ei, kcu /car' 
oXiyov a v aXctfji j3dv ei kcu avapptovvrai. H hpyd y) yprjyopa deXei, 
TeXos, tov eviayyaei r] iravaotyos Upovotu fie tt)v irdy^pvaov pdj3- 
cov Trjs ayadorriros rrjs, icai deXei irdXiv tov fieTafiopcpioaei, ws r] 
Adrjvd tov O^i/ccea, els dvbpa veov kcu koXov, kcu la^vpov, kclI 
7raXtv tov evlvaei ty\v Kctdapdv Trjs dp^alas tov botys (ttoXtjv, 
' de/ias b" 6(j)eXel /ecu r'i(jr)v.' wore /ecu clvtoI ol TLpaafiiTcu, ra 
T€Kva Trjs 7raXaids tiov ¥AXrjvu)v cro^ias, (3Xe7rovTes TeXetav ti)v 
ifiri Trpo^povaav fieTafioXriv tov, rd eictyiovrjauHTi fxerd dd/uj3ovs 
teat -^apas, ws o T^Xejua^os 7rept tov Odvacreojs, to 

AXXolos jioi, Zelve, (pdvrjs veov ?}e TzdpoiQev. 

TavTa aw Qe<3 eXiri£ov(nv ol EXXrjves, eXiri&vai he kcu itavres 
ui (piXeXXrfves." 



THE EISTD, 



Printed by Richard and Jon* E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 



CLASSICAL AND SCHOOL LITERATURE, 

PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 



GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE. By Augustus 
Matthi.e. Translated from the German by Blomfield. Fifth Edition. 
Revised by Kenrick. 2 vols. 8vo. 30s. 

" The Fifth Edition of Matthise's Greek Grammar exhibits by far the most complete 
system of Grammatical Rules and Examples that have yet been given to the world, 
embodying the latest results of the scholarship of the present age." 

II. 

INDEX OF QUOTATIONS FROM GREEK AUTHORS 
contained in the Fifth Edition of MATTHLE'S GREEK GRAMMAR. 
Second Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

in. 

BUTTMAN'S LEXILOGUS ; a Critical Examination of the 
Meaning and Etymology of various Greek Words and Passages in Homer, 
Hesiod, and other Greek Writers. Translated, with Notes, by Fishlake. 
Second Edition. 8vo. 14s. 

" A most able disquisition. It contains a deeper and more critical knowledge of Greek, 
more extensive research, and more sound judgement^than we ever remember to have 
seen in any work before." — Quarterly Review. 



BUTTMAN'S CATALOGUE OF THE IRREGULAR GREEK 

Verbs ; with all the Tenses that are Extant — their Formation, Meaning, 
and Usage, accompanied by a Complete Index. Translated, with Notes, 
by Fishlake. Second Edition. 8vo. 7*. Gd. 

" Buttman's Catalogue contains all those prominent irregularities so fully and funda- 
mentally investigated, that I was convinced a translation of them would prove a valuable 
assistant to every lover and student of Greek literature." — Preface. 

V. 

PLAYS OF ARISTOPHANES. Edited, with English Notes, 
bv Thomas Mitchell, A.M. 8vo. 10.?. each. 1. ACHARNENSES.— 
2. WASPS.— 3. KNIGHTS.— 4. CLOUDS.- 5. FROGS. 8vo. lbs. 

VI. 

MULLER'S DORIANS ; THE HISTORY AND ANTIQUI- 
TIES OF THE DORIC RACE. Translated from Muller, by Tufxel 
and Lewis. Second Edition. Maps. 2 vols. Svo. 26s. 

" We close the volumes in admiration of the author's unwearied industry and great 
knowledge."— New Jlonf/tl// Magazine. 



CHOEPHORCE OF iESCHYLUS. A New Edition of the Text, 
edited with English Notes, by the Rev. T. W. Peile, D.D., Head Master 
of Repton School. Second Edit inn. 8vo. 9s. 



lEJc.'30 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



^ilW 






^H 









■ 

■ 

■ 

■ I 




